Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-tables] How replaced elements are handled when receiving a table-* display type

The CSS Working Group just discussed `replaced elements as table cells`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: All internal table displays on replaced elements to behave as 'inline'.`
* `RESOLVED: table falls back to block, inline-table falls back to inline`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dbaron> Topic: replaced elements as table cells<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: We added a diagram of what the spec says to do<br>
&lt;dbaron> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/508<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/508#issuecomment-260486721<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: Made a table of results<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: what we tried to do, where it behaved more like block, specified to be as block<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: if behaved more like inline, specified as inline<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: we dont' have a strong pref<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: This is 1st to discuss<br>
&lt;fantasai> dgrogan: WE talked about this in Chrome, don't want to defend our behavior. I todesn't make much sense<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: For firefox, we prefer firefox behavior<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: It seems like author did something wrong, so make it more obvious it's wrong<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: One question here is do you do anonymous box construction around these things<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth:<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: no<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: Do you think some of these results are because of anonymous box construction?<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: they don't create separate cells<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: They wouldn't, if they did anonymous box construction ...?<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: So besides Chrome having pref, anyone else?<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen: So path forward is to fall back to Firefox's behavior?<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: Seems to me that making it block would make more sense<br>
&lt;fantasai> fremy: Wouldn't be Web-compatible<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: Any objection to resolve on Firefox's behvaior?<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: All internal table displays on replaced elements to behave as 'inline'.<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: table falls back to block, inline-table falls back to inline<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek: Point about anonymous box construction, are there tests ?<br>
&lt;fantasai> gregwhitworth: I'm sure we have tests for it somewhere<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek: ...<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: What do you mean anonymous boxes don't get constructed?<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: Do individual things create individual table cells, or group together into one cell<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: Do different things depending on row-group vs table-cel etc<br>
&lt;fantasai> tantek: Based on what dbaron said, maybe just copy what Firefox does<br>
&lt;Rossen> The resolution is specific about what the behavior is<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: If it's defined as "behave as inline", then anonymous box construction is defined<br>
&lt;fantasai> dbaron: Could do anonymous box before, rather than after treating as inline<br>
&lt;Rossen> ... and it is not "just repeat what Firefox does"<br>
&lt;fantasai> fantasai: That would end up with improper table structures, which the spec does not allow<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/508#issuecomment-319891999 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 3 August 2017 07:32:41 UTC