W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2010

RE: redone margin-collapse-027.xht (was RE: 3 Microsoft margin collapsing tests (wrt float, clear and clearance))

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 23:00:44 +0000
To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>, "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <651D2A831D17C040B828D62270386CE929A4C2AC@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Patrick Garies  wrote:
> 
> On 2010-01-25 8:02 PM, GĂ©rard Talbot wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > <meta name="assert" content="When two siblings are adjoining and their
> > margins collapse, then the bottom margin of the last sibling does not
> > collapse with the parent's bottom margin when such parent own margins
> > collapse and when clearance has occurred." />
> 
> I'm afraid that I have to disagree with your proposed addition of the word
> "then" here. That makes it sound like cause-and-effect when you're
> describing a condition and constraint:
> 
> Condition: "two siblings are adjoining and their margins collapse"
> Constraint: "the bottom margin of the last sibling does not collapse with the
> parent's bottom margin when such [parent's] own margins collapse and
> when clearance has occurred"
> 
> The added comma is good.
> 
> "Parent" should be "parent's" (typo?).
> 
> The description still does not make clear where "clearance has occurred";
> does it have to occur on the parent, one of the two siblings, or a combination
> thereof?

I have completely rewritten the assert now. Please let me know if it makes more sense.

--
Thanks,
Arron Eicholz



Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 23:01:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 September 2010 17:52:01 GMT