- From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 10:25:48 -0400
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
Don't put away the white-out yet. You're going to need to rewrite more of that spec to get it to conform to your revisionist version of history. (Aren't these kinds of fundamental changes in a technology traditionally accounted for by releasing new versions of the specification rather than manipulating one that's already been released for over three years piecemeal until it suits your own self-serving agenda?) Let's break this down into simple terms. Do the table display types assign table semantics to an arbitrary element? On Sat, 06 Apr 2002 18:34:39 +0100, Ian Hickson wrote: >Thanks to the people who pointed out where the spec said that table >display >types shouldn't be used in HTML. > >For the record, that section of the spec has been rewritten. It now >reads: > ># User agents may ignore these 'display' property values for HTML >table ># elements, since HTML tables may be rendered using other >algorithms intended ># for backwards compatible rendering. > >As the errata says, the intention was that a UA may refuse to render >an HTML >table as anything else than a table. The sentence was not meant to >discourage >the use of 'display: table' on other, non-table elements in HTML. > >So please people. Go out and use the table display types in HTML. >There is >nothing wrong with doing so. What is wrong is using the HTML table >elements for >non-tabular data, an all-too-common technique. >
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 10:31:04 UTC