- From: davidsgrogan via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 23:05:06 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
davidsgrogan has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-tables] column constrainedness and cell outer max-content width == (Stems from https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2802) https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tables-3/#outer-max-content says > - The **outer max-content width** of a table-cell in a *non-constrained column* is max(min-width, width, min-content width, min(max-width, max-content width)) adjusted by the cell intrinsic offsets. https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tables-3/#constrainedness says > A column is constrained if its corresponding table-column-group (if any), its corresponding table-column (if any), or any of the cells spanning only that column has a computed width that is not "auto", and is not a percentage. The `constrained` definition implies that if a table-cell is in a non-constrained column, it has `width: auto`. But then why does the `outer max-content width` definition pasted above include `width` if it's always auto? Just redundant or am I missing something, perhaps related to column spanning? In that vein, should > table-cell **in a** non-constrained column be changed to > table-cell **that originates in a** non-constrained column Otherwise, if the concept of **in a** has been defined, could that get a link to the definition? Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3037 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2018 23:05:08 UTC