- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 14:53:25 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20060916215325.GA19675@ridley.dbaron.org>
On Saturday 2006-09-16 10:36 +0100, David Woolley wrote: > > > 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? I'm discussing intrinsic width calculation; rendering at the final column widths, if they change, is another pass. However, with incremental rendering of long tables, they may remain constant across many of the updates. > 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. No, since both options are within the constraints of Web-compatibility. Some browsers currently do one and some the other. -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ > Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
Received on Saturday, 16 September 2006 21:53:30 UTC