W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [CSS21] 'overflow' on 'table'/'inline-table'

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:24:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4E2B581E.5040805@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style@gtalbot.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 23/07/2011 17:39, Anton Prowse wrote:
> 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).

I beg your pardon, obviously I'm wrong there: that list includes table 
boxes in addition to the block container elements.  So the new text in 
the spec didn't accurately replace the old text, and hence there is 
something that needs reviewing (albeit not what you originally raised, I 

I'm embarrassed to say that the new wording is probably due to me.[1] 
It does seem likely that the new wording was what was always intended, 
though.  Either way, as I mentioned, none of the tests cited so far 
would appear to test that:

> 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://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0079.html

Anton Prowse
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 23:24:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:02 UTC