- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 01:16:23 -0400
- To: Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com>
- Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 2015-03-22 10:32, Robert Hogan a écrit : > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 10:46 AM Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 5:22 AM Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Another interop issue I would appreciate input on from the WG. This >>> one >>> unfortunately is not as clear cut (most table issues aren't), but I >>> do >>> believe based on regular table markup that IE is doing the correct >>> thing >>> here. Here is the testcase: http://jsbin.com/yutipulode/1/ >>> edit?html,css,output >>> >>> >>> > While fixing the rendering of table 2 on Blink I encountered a > regression > in the following test case: > > http://jsbin.com/cifoqapuho/1/edit Your test *has to avoid* code scenarios where the spec says - "free to make a guess" - "does not define" - "undefined" - "not defined" - "not specified" - "unknown" - etc. " CSS 2.1 does not define how extra space is distributed when the 'height' property causes the table to be taller than it otherwise would be. (...) CSS 2.1 does not define how the height of table cells and table rows is calculated when their height is specified using percentage values. " These 2 sentences affect your test, I'd say. In your test, because the table only has 1 row and 1 single cell, the single cell is constrained to honor the 100% height declaration on the table element, the cell height has to increase dramatically. Another thing we realized when reviewing CSS2.1 tests on tables is that tests involving a table having only 1 single row with only 1 single cell is often unreliable and not trustworthy for checking compliance. The very minimum for testing tables, I think, is 2 rows with 2 cells each; normal, more reliable and trustworthy is 3 rows with 3 cells each. ----- By the way, I heard no comment, saw no feedback about my claim that webkit had a bug in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0108.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0109.html Gérard
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 05:16:52 UTC