W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 1998

Re: border on broken line boxes (was Re: 14.2.1 'background-position' - block level only?)

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 21:36:03 -0700
To: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>, Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org>
CC: Style Sheet mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1306922410-573808835@psdbay.com>
> From: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk> 
>Tantek wrote:
>> Speaking of broken line boxes, it does not seem clear from the
>> CSS2 spec how a conforming user agent is supposed to render
>> borders on broken line boxes (maybe I just missed that page
>> out of the 300+ pp. :-).  
>I know how you feel, because I just spent at lest 45 minutes trying to
>answer that very question for my last message (same thread) to www-style.
>The answer would seem to be in the diagram at the end of section 9.4.2
>(there is an ASCII version at the end of my last post):
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#inline-formatting
>
>I think that this clears it up, although it is only a brief explanation.

It certainly clears up some questions.    However, in that same section
there is this piece of text:

"When an inline box is split, margins, borders, and padding have no visual
effect where the split occurs."

Is it too much to presume that that last "split occurs" was intended to be
"split(s) occur(s)"?

e.g. This is one way of interpreting section 9.4.2 for an inline box that
splits across more than two lines (paraphrasing the examples used for the
abovementioned diagram):

         +-------------------
Several  |emphasized words,
         +-------------------
-----------------------------
enough to break across more
-----------------------------
---------------+
than two lines,| appear here.
---------------+

            fig. 1

Is this what was intended?  Another possibility (adjacent borders of
adjacent broken line boxes overlapping):

         +-------------------
Several  |emphasized words,
---------+-------------------
enough to break across more
---------------+-------------
than two lines,| appear here.
---------------+

            fig. 2


And finally, the "around the area defined by the union of the broken line
boxes" I was trying to explain in my original email:

         +------------------+
Several  |emphasized words, |
+--------*                  |  
|enough to break across more|
|               *-----------+
|than two lines,| appear here.
+---------------+

            fig. 3

* = that 270 degree corner I mentioned previously.

So, which figure describes what the spec intended, and is that also what
authors expect(ed)?  Comments?

Regards,

Tantek Çelik
Internet Explorer for Macintosh
tantekc@microsoft.com
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 1998 00:28:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT