[lisper]

If I am inside the context of a <table-for-structure> tag and I want to create a new row then the only kind of row I can create is a <table-row-for-structure>. It makes no sense to put a <table-row-for-display> inside a <table-for-structure> so requiring the programmer to specify <table-row-for-structure> rather than just <table-row> or <tr> is making her do a lot of extra typing for no value add. A <tr> inside a <table-for-structure> is necessarily a <table-row-for-structure> and a <tr> inside a <table-for-display> is necessarily a <table-row-for-display> just as a + operator operating on two integer values is an integer addition and a + operator operating on two floats is a floating point addition. There is no need to force the programmer to do extra typing to specify what is meant by + in a particular context. Likewise there is no need to force the programmer to do extra typing (or thinking) to specify what <tr> means inside a particular context.

[goto11]

But...you do only need to type <tr>. The problem you describe only becomes an issue if you use <table>s for layout in the first place, so just don't do that. If you want to display something (which isn't semantically a table) in a grid-like layout, you use display:table or display:grid in CSS, you don't change the markup. And vice-versa if you have <table> which you don't want to display in rows and columns, you can override the default presentation in CSS without changing the markup.

The hypothetical <table-for-layout> element is just not needed in any scenario. It would have been useful back in the day before IE supported display:table, but that is at least a decade ago.

[lisper]

> The problem you describe only becomes an issue if you use <table>s for layout in the first place, so just don't do that.

I could just as easily say that the "problem of overloaded operators" only becomes a problem if you try to use + to add anything other than two ints. So don't do that.

But OK, assuming I accept the premise, what should I do instead? The CSS community has been dithering about the answer for years. Only very recently has there been anything even remotely approaching an acceptable solution i.e. a solution that actually reproduces table layouts without having to pile on a ton of hacks. In the intervening years, a lot of legacy code was produced that used <table> for layout because it was the only thing that actually worked.

There also the fact that <display-table><tr><td> or something like that just looks a lot cleaner and is easier to read than <div class=table-for-display><div class=table-row-for-display><div class=table-cell-for-display>. When you make complex table layout you end up with a lot of TR and TD tags, so it makes sense to keep those short to avoid cluttering things up.

[goto11]

If you genuinely want a layout exactly like a html table you use display:table. You probably don't, but it is there if you want.

You don't really need repeated class=table-row-for-display etc, this can be achieved by CSS contextual selectors.

But in reality html tables was not designed as an all-round layout tool in the first place and the layout algorithm was never specified in detail. Flexbox and flexgrid are typically more appropriate and powerful as layout tools.

[lisper]

> display:table

I tried that once many years ago. It didn't work. It might work today but I no longer care.

> this can be achieved by CSS contextual selectors

That would be true if display:table worked, but it doesn't (or at least it didn't) and so it doesn't.

And you still need some markup for the contextual selectors to work on. The obvious choice is <table><tr><td>, or, if it existed, <display-table><tr><td>. Maybe <grid><gr><gd> but that's not going to happen.

[goto11]

> That would be true if display:table worked, but it doesn't (or at least it didn't) and so it doesn't.

Can you describe the problem you are having?

[lisper]

No. That last time I tried it was many years ago. Maybe it works now. I neither know nor care.