Re: border-radius

Nick, (and the rest of the group at CSS)

Could someone explain to me why a CSS user needs to use a table  
element to produce something which is clearly a style? Border  
collapse is just one example, but this question has reminded me of  
questions which I have asked several times before. I know that border- 
collapse began with the <TABLE> element, and still exists there. But  
that was years ago. Every Block element now may have a border. If two  
Block elements are adjacent to each other (no padding between them)  
why is it not possible for a CSS user to invoke a style such as  
"border-collapse: on;"?

There are more complexities than just "on" and "off", but I believe I  
listed most of them the last time(s) I asked this question. If  
someone is interested, either I can find the mails in the group  
archives, or you can look for my name and find for yourselves the  
details I outlined then. It seemed unreasonable then (And still seems  
unreasonable -- to me) that something which is a style and has  
nothing to do with the information which a <table> element defines,  
should be usable ONLY when a <table> is declared.

I have asked nicely, and once or twice harangued, that the group  
consider splitting the style information out of the <table> elements  
and making it available on any block element. Several other style  
controls are also exclusive to tables, and should be available to  
blocks in general.

Separate Style from information. Use HTML/XHTML for information. Use  
CSS for styling. Right now, it is impossible to do many styling  
things (border collapse is only one; see my prior rants/discussions  
or email me for a more complete list) unless the styling is done with  
a <table> element.

On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:13 AM, wrote:

> Could someone explain why it's impossible to apply border-radius to  
> a table element with border-collapse set to collapse?
> Why can't the border conflict resolution rules be updated with  
> something like: "If border styles only differ in border-radius,  
> then a style set on a cell wins over one on a row, which wins over  
> a row group, column, column group and, lastly, table."

If my above suggestion (some have said rant) were accepted, this  
problem would go away. (Yes, there would be other complexities  
because the blocks might not be a complete table or might be  
rearranged by changing the window size, but this problem would have a  
clear solution. I'm not sure what the solution would be, yet, but  
there must be a solution and it would have to be described in the CSS  
Specification. If you care, my preference would be that the first  
block (in filling/stacking order -- for English this would be left-to- 
right and top-to-bottom) would supersede the following blocks (next  
right, and next down).

Besides border-radius, there would need to be solutions for different  
border sizes, colors, etc. Many solutions can be used directly from  
the resolutions employed by the <table> element. But, however these  
things end up, using a <table> to create collapsed borders is wrong.

> Nick Hofstede,
> Inventive Designers
> Inventive Designers' Email Disclaimer:
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> -- 


Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 01:47:55 UTC