Bugzilla

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #4)
> > I'm curious if dholbert has thoughts here, since he filed that linked crbug.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Chromium bug is something entirely different.  That bug is about an element with `display:table`, not about the `<table>` tag itself. (Plus, the padding there is on a child of a table, not on the table itself.)

Ah, my mistake -- I didn't read far enough down on that bug. I just read a bit more, and I guess that chromium bug evolved into covering roughly what's being discussed here, and it looks like it's roughly covering a special case where they **disagree** with us on sizing in `div` with `display:table`, due to activating their `tables-get-border-box-behavior` special case. Or something.

Anyway, bottom line, this is some dark magic that I would hate for us to have to reverse-engineer and standardize on.  And it seems that it's absolutely not as simple as just changing the default value in our UA stylesheet. :)

I would hope that Chromium might fix this as part of their "LayoutNG" effort and/or "the big table rewrite" that was referenced in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=598134#c6

(In reply to Daniel Holbert [:dholbert] from comment #5)
> (In reply to Mike Taylor [:miketaylr] from comment #4)
> > I'm curious if dholbert has thoughts here, since he filed that linked crbug.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Chromium bug is something entirely different.  That bug is about an element with `display:table`, not about the `<table>` tag itself. (Plus, the padding there is on a child of a table, not on the table itself.)

Ah, my mistake -- I didn't read far enough down on that bug. I just read a bit more, and I guess that chromium bug evolved into covering roughly what's being discussed here, and it looks like it's roughly covering a special case where they **disagree** with us on sizing in `div` with `display:table` (despite the fact that they agree with us on simple `div-display-table` scenarios per testcase 3 here). This must be due to them activating their `tables-get-border-box-behavior` for some special case when sizing children of the table box, or something.

Anyway, bottom line, this is some dark magic that I would hate for us to have to reverse-engineer and standardize on.  And it seems that it's absolutely not as simple as just changing the default value in our UA stylesheet. :)

I would hope that Chromium might fix this as part of their "LayoutNG" effort and/or "the big table rewrite" that was referenced in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=598134#c6