- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:55:33 +0000
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On Monday, December 06, 2010 3:39 AM Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: > On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:25:34 +0100, Arron Eicholz > <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:50 AM Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: > >> Thanks, though I don't think height-applies-to-004 should have been > >> included in that change. > > > > Maybe but the spec isn't updated yet > > (http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/visudet.html#the-height- > proper > > ty) so technically according to the spec in section 10.5 none of the > > cases should have changed. I am kinda flying blind here since the spec > > isn't updated but I think we agreed that table-row could not have > > height on it as well thus 004 should be included in this change. > > The 'height' property applies to table row groups according to section 10.5, > but its meaning in that case is undefined according to a later section, as > mentioned in my original mail. > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:25:13 +0100, Øyvind Stenhaug > <oyvinds@opera.com> > wrote: > > > Spec's section 17.5.3 states > > > > "CSS 2.1 does not define the meaning of 'height' on row groups." > > (http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/tables.html#height-layout) > > It's possible there was some agreement on table-row as well but I could only > find issues regarding percentage heights and min-/max-height. Fixed -- Thanks, Arron Eicholz
Received on Wednesday, 8 December 2010 15:56:09 UTC