W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2017

Re: [css-position] Seeking spec clarification on effect of position: sticky on table elements

From: Stephen Mcgruer <smcgruer@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 10:10:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CADY3Maf3z5GfOJrYsNQG3XoD6sQzhGBOxAWF8fUKeZrEM=V+hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:06 UTC