Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-04-21

On 4/22/10 11:29 AM, fantasai wrote:
> Tab: AFAICT, it looks great
> fantasai: There's a related issue of handling abspos elements
> fantasai: Boris's original proposal had abspos elements leave behind
> a "placeholder", which would then affect the anonymous
> table box generation
> fantasai: From an implementator's perspective, I can see why. In Gecko
> each out-of-flow has a placeholder left behind so that we
> can calculate its static position
> fantasai: But from an authoring perspective, it doesn't make any sense
> for the abspos to leave anything behind
> fantasai: The out-of-flow should just disappear from its original
> position
> Tab agrees that it should not affect layout where it used to be (but
> is no longer)
 > fantasai: it's easy to say that the abspos elements don't affect box
 > generation in their former location, but it's harder to
 > stay then what the static position is
 > ACTION: Tab write a proposal

At risk of sounding repetitive, I should note that the behavior I 
described is not just the Gecko behavior but also the Webkit, Presto, 
and IE8 standards mode behavior.

So while we can write a proposal, that proposal would ipso facto be at 
risk, right?  Are people ok with that?

> <oyvind> does it break compat?
> <table><colgroup><strong>test</strong></colgroup></table>
> is shown here...

It's not shown over here in Gecko, Webkit, or Presto.  Unless you meant 
that source parsed as HTML, not that DOM.  An HTML parser will fix up 
that source to hoist the <strong> completely out of the <table>.  Please 
either parse as XHTML or build the DOM directly using DOM APIs.


Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 05:52:58 UTC