- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 09:24:42 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Opera is fine with changing the specification though we'd prefer not to > make 17.2.1 more complicated than it already is. Something near section > 16.6.1 that says something like the following would be better we think: > > For table, inline-table, table-row-group, table-column, > table-column-group, table-header-group, table-footer-group or > table-row, all whitespace is ignored. That's more ambiguous. You'd then have to define how the white-space processing rules interlace with the anonymous box generation rules. Right now you process white-space after all boxes are generated. If you agree that the requirements on the UA wind up being the same (end result being the same), then I'd much rather follow the current proposal. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Mar/0024.html ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 16:25:23 UTC