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

On 5/24/10 3:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> It needs to.  Making sure it acts properly wrt whitespace should be
> relatively simple here.  We just want to match the behavior of the
> table-repair algorithm.  Something like "For the purposes of the
> algorithm, a sibling is an element or a run of text immediately
> adjacent to the abspos element, or with only whitespace separating it
> from the abspos element."  (We're ignoring whitespace whether it's pre
> or not, right?)

You also need to skip placeholders (except the ones for floats?), right?

> Hmm.  That's acceptable, but if it's weird, we can just expand the
> [row|header|footer]-group rules into separate clauses, so it'll bind
> to the row-group preferentially, which we probably want.  Any
> preference on whether header/footer should be expanded, or is it okay
> to leave them as the same clause and just bind to whichever it runs
> into first?

I don't think I have much of a preference.


Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 19:40:13 UTC