- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:09:21 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On 03 Aug 2015, at 23:47, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: >> On 08/03/2015 11:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> I am, personally, okay with the table-row collapsing to nothing, table >>> layout taking place as if the row was empty, and then the cells (a) >>> taking their widths from the table columns, which were calculated >>> without them, possibly causing inline overflow in each cell, and (b) >>> overflowing the row, overlapping the next visibly. >> >> This could be reasonable behavior, yeah. >> >> (border-collapsing around a "contain:layout" row would probably require >> some special-case coding & and perhaps speccing, too. I think the rows >> on either side of a 'contain:layout' row would need to have their cells' >> borders collapse together, as if the row in between them were really empty.) > > Never mind, too much special-casing, abort abort abort. > >>> But I completely understand if that's not really possible (or at >>> least, not without a lot of trouble) for our actual codebases, which >>> might make some assumptions about tables that are difficult/dangerous >>> to violate. Is that the case? >> >> For Gecko at least, I think it's possible. Not sure how much trouble >> it'd be; I think it'd mostly just require a bunch of special cases, and >> probably some refactoring to support those special cases. > > Not worth adding a bunch of special-casing for a case that nobody > cares about in the first place. For table rows/columns, I agree. For table cells, it seems completely reasonable to me to do contain:layout (assuming you also specify a width and height of course). But it's still not completely trivial. Layout out table cells as if they were empty and then putting back content into them isn't a defined operation as far as I can tell. If you explicitly set the width or height of a table cell to something larger than what it's automatic with/height, it works, but if you set them to something smaller, the cells do not get smaller. In other words, there is not such thing as table-layout:fixed on table cells, but we need one if we want contain:layout to work on table cells, which I think we do. - Florian
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2015 16:09:52 UTC