- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 19:09:18 +0000 (UTC)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, fantasai wrote: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#q7 > > # A column box occupies **one or more columns** of grid cells. > # Column boxes are placed next to each other in the order > # they occur. The first column box may be either on the > # left or on the right, depending on the value of the > # 'direction' property of the table. > > Each column box should only encompass _one_ column. The source document > may use a single element to represent a sequence of several columns as > in HTML, but this element represents, however, multiple individual > columns and not a grouping of columns. CSS properties should therefore > apply to each of those columns individually, as the 'width' attribute is > in HTML. There are two issues here. First, can a column box span multiple columns. There is no reason why this should not be the case, as far as I can see. One could imagine in CSS3 having: mycolumn { display: table-column; col-span: 2; } ...be meaningful. The second issue is whether it is possible to represent <col span=""> using CSS and display:table-column. It would appear to me that it is not, based on the current wording of the spec (it would take several changes to make it possible). I would suggest using a technology such as XBL or the multiple ::before pseudo idea from CSS3 to map one element to multiple separate boxes in this manner. (CSS really needs easy on-the-fly transformation for this kind of stuff, but that's another story.) > WinIE, Opera, and Mozilla all seem to follow this interpretation. > (Opera and Mozilla respect borders, WinIE and Mozilla respect width.) WinIE doesn't support table-column, Opera and Mozilla both have hard-coded ways of interpreting properties on <col>. There is no current way to test if a UA actually supports what the spec says or not, since there is no way to specify how many columns cell and column boxes should span. > Unseen Rows > =========== > > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#empty-cells > > # A value of 'hide' means that no borders or backgrounds are > # drawn around/behind empty cells (see point 6 in 17.5.1). > # Furthermore, if all the cells in a row have a value of 'hide' > # and have no visible content, the entire row behaves as if it > # had 'display: none'. > > The entire row should behave as if it had 'visibility: collapse'. > Simple reason why: cells in a row with 'visibility: collapse' > still affect column widths, and cells in a row with "empty-cells: > hide" should, too. Why? The only reason visibility:collapse cell still affect layout is for optimisation, as I understand it. In the empty-cells case, it doesn't apply, since the change won't be done dynamically in the same way. > WinIE, Opera, and Mozilla all have this interpretation. They should be fixed. If UAs don't implement this right, the spec will have to change before exiting CR. > Border-Collapse Border-Box Dimensions > ===================================== > > The problems with collapsed outer table borders noted in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Mar/0003.html > don't seem to have been addressed by the last draft. > > I'd like to note that this problem *has* to be addressed by > incorporating the outer border into the margin space, not the > border space or the overflow. Otherwise, you get some really > awful renderings. See > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/demos/border-collapse-overflow/ > for a demonstration. This seems to just be a browser bug. The backgrounds shouldn't spill outside the table edge. I suppose this might result in an irregular background clipping rectangle. Again, if UAs don't implement this right, the spec will have to change before exiting CR. > There seem to be no provisions for allowing the UA to generate > anonymous row groups to contain rows directly inside a table. This has been fixed, I think. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 14:09:40 UTC