Chromium Code Reviews
Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign in
(19)

Issue 2786743002: Enable position:sticky for <thead> and <tr> elements (Closed)

Created:
2 years, 4 months ago by smcgruer
Modified:
2 years, 4 months ago
CC:
chromium-reviews, szager+layoutwatch_chromium.org, blink-reviews-style_chromium.org, zoltan1, blink-reviews-css, pdr+renderingwatchlist_chromium.org, eae+blinkwatch, leviw+renderwatch, dglazkov+blink, apavlov+blink_chromium.org, jchaffraix+rendering, darktears, blink-reviews, blink-reviews-layout_chromium.org, rwlbuis
Target Ref:
refs/heads/master
Project:
chromium
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Enable position:sticky for <thead> and <tr> elements With the recent changes in tip-of-tree for nested sticky and correctly walking the ancestor sticky chain, it appears we are able to support sticky correctly for <thead> and <tr> elements. Supporting this enables the use-case of (much) easier multi-row sticky table headers. BUG=702927

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : Tidier way of setting locationContainerForSticky #

Total comments: 2

Patch Set 3 : Rebase over blink reformat #

Messages

Total messages: 12 (7 generated)
smcgruer
I was surprised, but it seems like we might be able to correctly support sticky ...
2 years, 4 months ago (2017-03-29 18:02:57 UTC) #2
mstensho (USE GERRIT)
I find it a bit unsettling to let position:sticky on internal table boxes allow them ...
2 years, 4 months ago (2017-03-29 18:27:55 UTC) #6
flackr
On 2017/03/29 18:27:55, mstensho wrote: > I find it a bit unsettling to let position:sticky ...
2 years, 4 months ago (2017-04-11 21:08:51 UTC) #9
smcgruer
> > I really think we need to implement position:relative support for > > display:table-* ...
2 years, 4 months ago (2017-04-12 14:17:01 UTC) #10
Yiorsi
2 years, 4 months ago (2017-04-13 02:40:26 UTC) #12
Message was sent while issue was closed.
On 2017/04/12 14:17:01, smcgruer wrote:
> > > I really think we need to implement position:relative support for
> > > display:table-* (the relevant types here would be table-row-group,
> > > table-header-group, table-footer-group, table-row, table-cell,
> table-caption)
> > > before we attempt to support position:sticky.
> > 
> > I'm inclined to agree. sticky with no constraints set should behave
> identically
> > to position relative, and I'd be worried about exposing bugs with position:
> > sticky that are due to bugs in position: relative. I'm not sure how much
work
> > there is involved in supporting relative on table types, but I think we
should
> > tackle this first or at the same time.
> 
> Ok, I will close this issue for now. Is there a bug tracking position:relative
> support for display:table-* ? Users are quite upset that we broke sticky on
> <thead> (since M56 had this working and M57 disabled it). The common use-case
is
> sticky multi-row headers, where applying sticky to individual <th> elements is
> hacky at best and usually doesn't display nicely (you have to guess the height
> of the cell).

See: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=417223

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698