W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2006

Re: table row order invariance vs. incremental layout efficiency (was Re: Specifying intrinsic width and table layout behavior)

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 10:36:18 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200609160936.k8G9aIX03056@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

> the constraints of Web-compatibility) requires doing two passes over the
> table, the first for non-column-spanning cells and the second for

Are you sure you mean two, rather than three; don't you need to an additional
pass to actually render the text into the finally chosen width?

Also, other than that it doesn't require author education to enable, does
this really gain you much compared with table-layout: fixed?  In fact, as
it is a change in algorithm, won't you still have the author education
problem that I suspect is the main reason that table-layout: fixed is
almost never used, as you will need to retain the current mode as default.
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 09:44:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:26 UTC