W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-bugzilla@w3.org > February 2012

[Bug 16037] Margin collapsing: unintuitive collapsing between last child and auto-height, large min-height parent

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:50:13 +0000
To: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1RzZFV-0002X1-W6@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16037

--- Comment #2 from Anton P <antonsforums@yahoo.co.uk> 2012-02-20 19:50:13 UTC ---
PROPOSAL:

Assuming that the above solution is agreed upon, then no change is needed to
the normative spec text for the non-zero min-height case, but a change is
needed to the Note in 8.3.1:

  # The bottom margin of an in-flow block box with a 'height' of 'auto'
  # and a 'min-height' of zero collapses with its last in-flow
  # block-level child's bottom margin if the box has no bottom padding
  # and no bottom border and the child's bottom margin does not collapse
  # with a top margin that has clearance.

s/and a 'min-height' of zero//
since it misleading to focus on the zero min-height case as if it were the only
situation in which there can be collapsing between the margins described.

Note that the phrase in question was introduced
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0683.html] in response
to David's point described in Comment 1.  I'm not clear that it serves any
purpose though, since it's not in the normative text and hence doesn't actually
fulfil David's point anyhow.  Instead, it just seems to introduce confusion.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 19:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 February 2012 19:50:17 GMT