4 ms·
> doing exactly the same thing only via css instead of a html attribute Yes! What's wrong with this approach? We have a lot of old HTML attributes that were us
by xkyf 5y ago
> doing exactly the same thing only via css instead of a html attribute
Yes! What's wrong with this approach? We have a lot of old HTML attributes that were used for styling that have been replaced by CSS.
> Yes, I know there are workarounds using flexbox, grid, etc
It's not a "workaround!" You're controlling the appearance using the styling language. What's wrong with this example?
https://jsbin.com/wexisiyamo https://jsbin.com/wexisiyamo
> "responsive" as in hide rows of table cells on some resolutions to make things fit better
HTML attributes (like colspan) don't do this! CSS does.
> it does not manipulate the amount of table rows a table-cell-display element takes up
I know, I mentioned it before :) it's related though.
With HTML attributes the layout is tied to your markup. Like you said it's more than table {display:grid;} but is adding .colspan-2 a lot more cruft than adding [colspan=2]?
- asddubs 5y agoi feel like you are being willfully obtuse at this point. All I want is two new css properties that mirror the behaviour of the colspan/rowspan html tag attributes. for things that are display:table-cell; (i.e. <td> tags). So that you can do light table manipulation without having to use grid or flexbox, which adds extra cruft that would be made redundant in situations where you want to do something very simple like hide a row. One last time, i understand this is possible with a whole bunch of css to recreate the entire structure of the table using grid, but if we had these two css properties, you would not need to do all this. it would be more convenient. If you still do not understand what I was trying to say, I'm sorry, I give up. This conversation has started to genuinely frustrate me at this point.