- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:44:29 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Rainer Åhlfors <rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, mongolie2006-w3c@yahoo.fr, CSS mailiing list W3C <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 29, 2008, at 11:59 AM, fantasai wrote:
>
> Rainer Åhlfors wrote:
>> Personally, I don't see what the problem would be to convert
>> <col>'s to CSS as part of parsing.
>> <col style="color: red;">
>> <col style="color: blue;">
>> td:nth-child(1) { color: red; }
>> td:nth-child(1) { color: blue; }
>> Or, am I missing something fundamental here?
>
> Yeah. Colspans and rowspans. The third <td> in a row
> is not always in the third column.
>
> ~fantasai
Still... presumably the UA knows what column a given cell is in (or
started in), in order to apply the COL properties that it does. If
"nth-child" is OK and not too burdensome for the UA, then what makes
"nth-col" (or nth-column) so much worse?
td:nth-col(1) { color: red; }
td:nth-col(2) { color: blue; }
If the first column TD of the row was a colspan (and not part of a
rowspan), then nth-col(2) would be ignored. And if the first column TD
of the row was a in a rowspan and was not the first TD of the span,
then it would be ignored. It does not seem like this would make the
rendering harder, and could be something that COL mapped to.
Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 01:45:07 UTC