Re: border-radius

David,


On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:36 AM, David Woolley wrote:

>
> James Elmore wrote:
>
>> <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>
>
> CSS acts on the value of the DISPLAY parameter, not on the element  
> type in the semantic document.  There may be a default mapping, but  
> if you want to force table like behaviour, you can do that purely  
> within the CSS.
>

You are, of course, correct. And what I said was off-base, but not  
completely wrong. So, to try and re-phrase my request:

Why should it be required for an element to take a DISPLAY type of  
"td" or "th" in order for it to collapse borders? Since any block  
type element may have borders, could the CSS group consider allowing  
border collapse to work on adjacent blocks?

The problem -- again to me -- is that there are styling properties  
which only work on table elements, whether those elements are created  
in html or declared with "display:td;" (or th or tfoot, or tcolumn,  
or ...).

> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>

Thank you for a thoughtful reply to my rant. I am trying to keep  
myself better controlled. Perhaps it is watching all the competitors  
at the Olympics.

(Maybe CSSwg needs to have some Web Olympic competitions! ;-)

</James>

Received on Monday, 11 August 2008 14:10:49 UTC