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

Re: [css-flexbox] Handling Anonymous Table Boxes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:19:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBxayvVm8MP=YZRckoPXAhOkSkMD-fbj6nSTGHvCZ8=UA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@gmail.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 12:56 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> Should we change the spec to make internal table display types just
>> turn themselves into flex items, instead of triggering anonymous box
>> generation?
> As long as it's consistent with other display types that have box-fixup
> (e.g. "display: ruby-base"), this seems OK to me.

I was just discussing this with fantasai and brought up the case of
<flexbox><table-row><table-cell />...</table-row></flexbox>.  This'll
give not-great results if we compute the table-row into a block, as
the cells will no longer fill the row.  (They'll instead get joined
into an anonymous table and shrinkwrap.)

We can fix this by forcing internal table display types to
display:table instead of display:block; it'll make Flexbox happy and
still avoid having to do box fixup.  Ruby doesn't have anything
sensical to do, so we can leave it as going to display:block.

(Then we can capture this concept in Display; we just need a name for it.)

Received on Tuesday, 21 July 2015 20:20:40 UTC

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