- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:35:33 -0800
- To: "Anton Prowse" <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Cc: "www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
Le Sam 3 décembre 2011 3:36, Anton Prowse a écrit : > On 02/12/2011 21:52, www-style@gtalbot.org wrote: >> Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> a écrit : >> >>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 03:47:47 +0100, Gérard Talbot >>> <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: >>> >>>> overflow applies to inline-table elements though according to >>>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-217 >>>> >>>> I can't help think that it's kinda weird ... overflow applies to >>>> inline-tables but not to fixed-width tables. <shrug> >>> >>> The text modified due to that issue was since superseded by >>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-120> and >>> <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-266>. Per the current spec >>> text, overflow does not apply to 'inline-table' nor 'table'. >> >> I do not read such in the issues you list. I do not see where it says or >> would suggest that overflow does not apply to inline-table. > > Issue 266, my issue 6 contained therein. > > Shame that the only one that didn't get pushed to errata was the one > that was wrong. Sorry guys :-( > > In the Applies To line of the 'overflow' property, "non-replaced > block-level elements, table cells, and inline-block elements" should > have been changed to "block containers and table boxes" not to "block > containers". I am not sure but maybe you should file this as a new issue " New issues on CSS 2.1 should go in Bugzilla (existing open bugs, file new bug). The issues below need to be moved to Bugzilla. " http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#css21 although... Bug 14763 - Remove Applies-To lines https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14763 > > (In my defense, the change that was implemented to the Applies To line > was proposed right from the start as part of the extensive mission[1] to > clean up the box handling in CSS21; my issue above was pointing out that > the prose describing the 'overflow' property had been (incorrectly as it > now turns out) changed in the 2010-12-07 CR spec[2] but the Applies To > line had not been updated to match it); this seemed to be an accidental > omission since nobody had publicly questioned the validity of the change > proposal. (I'm now wondering whether it really was an omission.) The > fact remains, though, that I was probably the most active reviewer of > the box cleanup mission and I'm disappointed not to have spotted this > error.) > > Gérard, would you mind summarizing what the browser support is for > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/overflow-applies-to-013.htm. I can do this for overflow-applies-to-013.htm and overflow-applies-to-014.htm . Where do you want me to do this? Another issue is that table width should not and will not apply overflow when formatting the table while using Automatic table layout algorithm. > This test is correct as per older versions of the spec, and if browser > support for it is good then it should remain correct and the spec be > fixed in errata. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0383.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-CSS2-20101207/visufx.html#overflow > > Apologies, > Anton Prowse > http://dev.moonhenge.net > regards, Gérard -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2011 17:36:12 UTC