RE: Questions about microsoft tests (3nd version)

Fantasai wrote:
> 
> On 02/01/2010 02:37 PM, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> > Robert Stam wrote
> >> 11) ---------
> >> chapter_17\table-height-algorithm-005.xht
> >>
> >> CSS 2.1 specification does not specify how extra table height space
> >> should be distributed over the rows. Since a cell-height percentage
> >> computes to auto, all rows will get an equal part of the remaining
> >> space. A more sophisticated algorithm could inspect cell and row
> >> percentage heights and try to satisfy them.
> >
> > The spec does state how height percentage works however. Percentage is
> > calculated off the containing block in this test case that is the
> > table element. This is defined by section 10.1 #2 since table is a
> > block level element. I believe that the spec is incorrect in stating
> > that percentage is undefined. That isn't true, it is defined. That
> > undefined clause needs to be removed from 17.5.3 paragraph 2, the last
> sentence or it needs to be clarified further.
> 
> It is stated to be undefined not because you can't come up with an
> interpretation for it, but because the spec intends for the behavior in this
> case to be undefined.
> The behavior of percentage heights and widths in tables is complicated (what
> happens if you specify 125%?), and for CSS2.1 the CSS Working Group
> explicitly chose not to attempt to define it. It is allowed to treat percentage
> heights for table cells as 'auto'. It is allowed to attempt to satisfy them
> according to some algorithm. The
> CSS2.1 spec explicitly leaves this up to the UA.
> 

I do not see text that states that percentage height on table-cells can be treated as 'auto'. Is that just part of the "left up to the UA" definition or is there an explicit call out?

I guess better text like the text for width in the paragraphs just above section 17.5.3 would make it more clear that, some percentage values can be calculated but ones above 100% are undefined and left up to the UA. This type of definition would be more in line with what the implementations do and would also help clarify an already ambiguous section.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz

Received on Tuesday, 2 February 2010 00:02:56 UTC