- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:26:49 -0700
- To: Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Jonathan Snook wrote: >> It strikes me that all these methods, including Jonathan's, >> Andrew's, and Advanced Layout Module, (and to some extent, Grid >> Positioning) seek to create table-like structures. What they then >> add, which display:table-cell lacks, is: >> >> 1. the ability to do rowspans and colspans (i.e. the equivalent of >> using grid units for widths and heights [or edge positions]), >> 2. the ability to have new rows specified without having a >> display:table-row element, and >> 3. the ability to move content to cells in a different order than >> they appear in the source. > > The Matrix proposal also offers up another couple advantage: > > 4. The ability to overlap elements. The visual formating model says that "The effect of 'position:relative' on table-row-group, table-header-group, table- footer-group, table-row, table-column-group, table-column, table-cell, and table-caption elements is undefined." But in theory it could be defined in such a way that allowed table cells to be moved into overlapping positions, at least when using the separated borders models. I assume that "Matrix Layouts" does not allow for collapsed borders? > 5. The ability to combine matrix, absolute, relative and static > content all within the same container. A table-cell could be a containing block for positioned items, couldn't it? Is this still undefined too? > > > I think these would be hard to extend within display:table-* > > -js
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 17:27:29 UTC