W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2015

Re: [css-flexbox] Handling Anonymous Table Boxes

From: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:31:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XGp0SFAm5zR+OKO0UuJdJPW=cDu2fyWEB3Tap43FQX7xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Personally I don't really care either way. As you point out, it is an edge
case.

I haven't made it a priority to fix it in chrome because it is a little
tricky to fix, rarely matters and is a lot less important than some of our
other bugs.

-christian
On Jul 17, 2015 4:01 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> The spec currently requires that we do box fixup before determining
> flex items:
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-css-flexbox-1-20150514/#flex-items
> This was discussed originally in this thread:
>   [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0508.html
>   [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0462.html
>   [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0473.html
>
> Chrome doesn't follow the spec in this case--it turns table cells into
> flex items. Which, as I had pointed out [2], has the nice ability to
> create a fallback rendering. The argument for not changing it was that
> nobody cares. [3]
>
> However, at least some people do care: see e.g. slide 39, which despite
> the fact that it would result in layouts that only work properly in
> Chrome, uses this technique:
>
> http://zomigi.com/downloads/Enhancing-Responsiveness-with-Flexbox_CSS-Day_150612.pdf
>
> Should we change the spec to make internal table display types just
> turn themselves into flex items, instead of triggering anonymous box
> generation?
>
> ~fantasai
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 July 2015 22:31:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC