W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-tables] repeating table headers and footers

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:54:47 +0900
Cc: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, CSS public list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3CD7011F-D554-4CB0-920C-6F4B90F6BA1A@rivoal.net>
To: Francois Remy <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>

> On Feb 20, 2016, at 05:14, Francois Remy <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> I added some placeholder in the spec, feel free to provide alternatives:
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-tables-3/#fragmentation

As far as pages are concerned, the spec text seems like a good start to me, but I'd suggest switching from SHOULD to MUST. For pretty much everything in the table spec we should strive for MUST.

> From what I have seen, browsers do not repeat headers/footers in
> multi-columns. 
> http://codepen.io/FremyCompany/pen/YwbOMM

For multicol, as far as I can tell:
- IE+Edge / Chrome / Safari don't repeat
- Print formatters do repeat (Vivliostyle doesn't as of now, but we're planning to, unless this discussion convinces us it's a bad idea).
- Firefox doesn't count, since it doesn't fragment tables across columns at all.

CSS Regions don't have enough implementations to be worth looking at what
"everybody" does when fragmenting tables there.

Despite the current lack of browser support for repeating table headers/footers in multicol, I'd argue the spec still should ask for repetition everywhere:
 - I don't think the distinction between different types of fragmentainers is justified
 - Multicol usage on the web is still low enough that I don't expect compat problems
 - Multicol in paged media is used more often, and UAs focused on paged media do repeat.
 - Minimizing the difference between "CSS for print" and "CSS for screen" is good.

Received on Monday, 22 February 2016 18:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC