W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [CSS21] Question on section optional recourse of the algorithm of 10.3.3

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:12:42 +0800
Message-ID: <503C6F6A.1040800@oupeng.com>
To: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
CC: Public W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
(12/08/25 7:45), "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/fixed-table-layout-001x.html
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/fixed-table-layout-001y.html
> No browser (explicit list: Firefox 14.0.1, Opera 12.0.1, Chrome
> 21.0.1180.81, Konqueror 4.9.0) centers the black stripe within the blue
> rectangle in both tests.

I am adding IE9 and WeasyPrint to the list. (Amaya is a bit weird. It
centers the black stripe in fixed-table-layout-001y but not the black
stripe in fixed-table-layout-001x. I think it either doesn't support
'table-layout' or belong to the list.)

> Now, if no browser use the algorithm of 10.3.3, then why should such
> possibility still be mentioned/remain in section ?
> I am for removing the whole block that starts with
> "However, if the table"
> to
> "margin-right: 2em }"

Agreed, and in fact no known implementation, browsers or non-browsers,
utilizes this possibility. Also, I have no idea why this paragraph
singles out tables in normal flow instead of just applying 10.3 in
general (for abs-pos and floated tables). Does anyone know the history here?

Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 07:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:20 UTC