- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:08:30 -0800
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 14, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> It also has a moderately pleasing (to me, at least) parallel with >> <tbody>, which serves the same purpose of being an optional wrapper >> for >> the body contents of the table. Styling opportunities with <tbody> >> are >> fewer due to the limitations imposed by the table formatting model, >> but >> it still finds plenty of use in my CSS. I used it just today to >> cleanly >> apply a border to just the <td>s in the body of a stats table, >> avoiding >> the placeholder <td> in the <thead> (serving just to take up a cell >> in >> the upper-left, as the table had both row and column headers). > > I think the parallel with <tbody> might be what is putting some > people off > -- <tbody> has been quite a big pain in the neck for many years, with > weird edge cases, parsing oddities, styling difficulties, etc. I'm not > saying we couldn't do it right, but it certainly isn't trivial. <tbody> is also different from the proposed <fbody>/<dbody> because it is implied when missing. So you can use it as a styling hook even if you didn't actually put it in your markup, at least in the text/html serialization. I don't think we want to make <fbody> or <dbody> implied, though, so they wouldn't have that advantage, and thus I think would lose a lot of their value. If you have to remember to do something specific and extra to get the styling hook on all <figure> and <details> elements, you may as well add a <div>, possibly with a special class, to each of them. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 15 January 2010 01:09:05 UTC