Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lisper 2285 days ago
> 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.
1 comments
goto11 2285 days ago
> 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?

link
lisper 2285 days ago
No. That last time I tried it was many years ago. Maybe it works now. I neither know nor care.
link
goto11 2285 days ago
So you are basically just trolling at this point.
link
lisper 2284 days ago
No, I'm giving you honest answers to your questions. Just because I have not gone back to explore a broken feature to see if it is no longer broken doesn't make me a troll.

But my point stands even if display:table works nowadays. The problem is not what you have to type in order to specify that some piece of markup should be displayed as a table even though it is not semantically a table. What matters is how much you have to type, and whether you have to redundantly specify that a table is for display only on every row and cell. To use display:table you also have to specify display:table-row and display:table-cell, and you have to do it again and again and again and again even though all this information is redundant and only needs to be specified once at the top level. There is absolutely no rational justification for this. It would be as if you had to specify the type of a variable in C not just when it was declared, but again every single time you referenced it.

link