- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:55:53 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
L. David Baron wrote: > On Monday 2008-06-09 19:23 -0700, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> That is defined in HTML tables already: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#h-11.2.4.4 >> (See Proportional specifications there) > > Sorry, but that was written by somebody who doesn't understand how > HTML table width calculation works. It's poorly defined enough that > I removed support for it from Mozilla (which I believe was the only > browser to support it). (And the way percentages on tables work is > really halfway between what's described in the spec as percentage > and what's described in the spec as proportional, since they are > relative to the actual size of the table, not the space available > for it. And percentages will even flex to other amounts when all > columns have percentage widths.) Table layout algorithm, indeed, could be defined better. But I see no problems with flex units by themselves. They peacefully coexist with other non-flex units. I believe that was a strategic mistake when percents in tables were made to behave as flexes. > > It also only defines behavior for widths, and not for margins or > heights. Historically html has a model of endless tape. Limited in horizontal direction but unlimited in vertical direction. No limits - no context for flex units computation. It was simply impossible to define flexes for table heights. CSS has concept of view height so vertical flexes can be added here. > > It also doesn't define the effect of those proportional units on > intrinsic width calculation, what their priority is relative to > other specifications (since the column's width can be specified on > the column or on any cell), or how they work when column-spanning > cells are present. (And I'm not saying that's an exhaustive list of > what's missing; it's just what I can think of right now.) Table layout algorithm is pretty simple in fact if to think in terms of flexes. Wondered at the beginning why it was so poorly defined. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2008 04:56:21 UTC