Anne van Kesteren

CSS tables part 2

Maybe you remember my post about CSS tables and why it sucks. I recently marked bug 26617 as INVALID and asked Ian Hickson why the specification is such a mess:

Why doesn't CSS2.1 uses 'min-height'? Currently 'height' should behave like 'min-height' on tables. Is this done for compatibility with HTML? Since from a CSS point of view, it doesn't make sense.

He replied today:

from before my time, but yes, CSS table model is vague for compatibility with the legacy table model.

I could have known that was the reason, 'cause CSS2 was finished in the 20th century (also known as "the table age"). Still, it is very annoying, especially since CSS3 refers to the CSS2.1 draft as the most recent and there are no known plans for updating it.


  1. Somewhat offtopic: get an RSS feed!

    Posted by Manuzhai at

  2. Ever heard from the LINK element? Probably not.. I think I should drop my idea using that element for the entire navigation and stop using the UL element for that. So I will still be using UL in the next version of my site (someone thought I was unclear...)

    Posted by Anne at

  3. While we're on this subject, could you tell that you update []? I'm using it to manage my blog lists, and your site is one of three that isn't in the directory.

    Posted by David House at

  4. I'm using it to manage my blog lists, and your site is one of three that isn't in the directory

    Eh... yes it is.
    I use too, and this site is in my favorites list.

    Posted by ACJ at

  5. Actually, I have heard of that element (I use it on my own weblog), and while it may be dumb not to look there, it'd be nice to have a visual link to the feeds.

    Posted by Manuzhai at

  6. The problem of presenting other versions by using the LINK element is that Internet Explorer doesn't support the standards in this matter.

    And in Mozilla you have to enable it by hand...

    Posted by Little Penguin at