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.

<soap-box>
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.
</soap-box>


On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:13 AM, Nick_Hofstede@inventivegroup.com 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:
> http://www.inventivedesigners.com/email-disclaimer
>
>
>
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
> -- 
>

</James>