- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:49:09 -0700
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2007-09-26 21:31 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> Kornel Lesinski wrote: >> >>> I think the latter: >>> >>> "The effect of 'position:relative' on table-row-group, >>> table-header-group, table-footer-group, table-row, table-column-group, >>> table-column, table-cell, and table-caption elements is undefined." >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#choose-position >>> >> I don't recall that being there before. Must have been added so CSS21 can >> actually exit CR... >> > > It was added in response to Issue #20 on the issues list for > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/ , which, given the lack > of a URL, was presumably raised by Ian, and concerns what happens > when the above elements get a stacking context (due to > 'position:relative' or 'opacity') being undefined. David and what is the problem with table/cells and position:relative? Something in principle or just "not-implemented"? I understand why position:relative makes no sense for table-row and table-column but for table-cells I see no problems. I think that table-cell with, let's say, position:fixed really makes no sense but limitation for position:relative appears as artificial. Or we just need to declare the whole @position non-applicable for elements with display other than block and inline-block. Which is in my opinion significantly better and fair. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 03:50:01 UTC