- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:36:52 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > <table> works pretty well already for tabular data. > There is a need for layout managers of different types (grid alike > LM is just one of them) . > I do not think that it makes real sense to try to fit all possible > cases into that display:table. > > Consider these four elements: > > |--- 100px---|-----------1* ----------| > |-------2* -----------|------ 1* -----| > > where elements replaced into two rows. In each row elements have the > same height equal to tallest element > and some elements have flex widths (and heights). There is no way in > current CSS to define this. At all. > Neither display:table nor floats will help. > I mean trying to make display:table to serve other roles than just > presenting tabular arrangements will > make display:table overcomplicated and will not be a complete and > expandable solution anyway. > I did not mean to imply that the table display mechanisms was the end- all display model to rule them all. Just that it is extremely useful for a huge number of Web page layouts, especially when uncoupled from the semantics of the HTML TABLE elements. There is a reason so many authors used them so much, and why we've been trying to hack together something ever since that is more semantic using floats and positioning and negative margins and such that would work almost as well as tables always have.
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 09:37:30 UTC