- From: Stephen Mcgruer <smcgruer@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:10:52 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADY3Maf3z5GfOJrYsNQG3XoD6sQzhGBOxAWF8fUKeZrEM=V+hg@mail.gmail.com>
Please ignore this thread in favor of https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0091.html . This original email was sent before I subscribed to the list, and apparently sat in the queue for some time before being approved today, apologies for the duplicate spam. On 17 February 2017 at 11:50, Stephen Mcgruer <smcgruer@chromium.org> wrote: > A recent discussion on a Chromium issue[1] revealed disagreement regarding > the behavior of position: sticky on table elements. The root of the > disagreement is the following wording within the CSS 3 position spec[2] for > position: sticky: > > "The effect of position: sticky on table elements is the same as for > position: relative" > > The position: relative text is: > > "The effect of position: relative on table elements is defined as follows > (emphasis mine): > > * table-row-group, table-header-group, table-footer-group and table-row *offset > relative to its normal position within the table*. If table-cells span > multiple rows, only the cells originating in the relative positioned row is > offset." > > Based on this text, an argument was put forward that for these table > elements position: sticky should offset not relative to its flow root, but > instead relative to its normal position within the table. The basis of this > argument is that the position: sticky spec specifically says the effect is > "the same". > > My belief is that position: sticky should apply to table-row-group, > table-header-group, table-footer-group and table-row identically to how it > does for other elements; offset with respect to its flow root. > > I note that back in Oct 2014 there was a similar discussion[3] in which an > intention to update the wording was declared - but this seems not to have > happened? (Or the wording was updated but is still unclear!) > > Thanks, > Stephen > > [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=690896#c10 > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-position-3/#position-property > [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Oct/0301.html >
Received on Friday, 3 March 2017 15:11:52 UTC