- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:21:46 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> If you have a multicol object with some forced column breaks in it, then >> it is pretty similar to having a single-row table with table-spacing. But >> better, because you can handle overflow and abspos better. But I kind of >> like that a table won't ever get narrower than all of its table-spacing. > > Sorry, not sure I follow you... I mean that the minimum width for an "width:auto" table is the total of all its borders, paddings, and border-spacing "gaps" (sorry, I meant "border-spacing", not "table-spacing" before). Likewise, the absolute minimum width for an "width:auto" multi-column element could be the total of all its borders, paddings, and column gaps. For a fixed width multi-column element, the excess gaps (and column-rules) could overflow the main box, or just be hidden. The difference with tables is that the cells can also not be narrower than their minimum content width, but that is an oddity of tables, and not always desirable, and not how columns work.
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 18:22:21 UTC