- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 17:39:57 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style@gtalbot.org
On 19/07/2011 08:37, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: > Presumably as part of the cleanup for issue 120, section 11.1.1 now says > that 'overflow' "Applies to: block containers" and that "This property > specifies whether content of a block container element is clipped" [1]. > However, multiple tests in the testsuite assume that it applies to > 'table' and 'inline-table' elements, which are not block containers > > Since I could find a resolution indicating that it should apply [6], I > suppose this is a mistake in the spec text. But (inline-)tables *are* block containers. Or rather, more precisely, a (inline-)table generates two boxes: a "table wrapper" block container box and an inner block-level table box (which sits alongside none or more table caption block boxes). The 2010-12-07 WD of CSS21 says that overflow applies to "non-replaced block-level elements, table cells, inline-table, and inline-block elements",[1] which is precisely the list of block container elements in CSS21 and hence subsequent revisions of the spec simply say that (notwithstanding the perennial box vs element issue, in particular the fact that "inline-table elements" here really means inline-level table wrapper boxes). Of course, if the issue is that browsers apply overflow to the table box itself, then that certainly up for review. But I don't think that's what the tests you cited show, since I imagine that that could only be meaningfully tested if there were at least one table caption box present, which there isn't. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-CSS2-20101207/visufx.html#propdef-overflow Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 22:40:35 UTC