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: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 18:44:31 +0100
Message-ID: <002c01bddb50$f3c9d7c0$c820268a@hpxu>
To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org>
Cc: Style Sheet mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>>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.  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#inline-formatting
>> 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)"?
I think that's likely. Any WG members want to comment?

> 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):
> 
>          +-------------------     [fig 1]
> Several  |emphasized words,
>          +-------------------
> -----------------------------
> enough to break across more
> -----------------------------
> ---------------+
> than two lines,| appear here.
> ---------------+

>
I think that that is about right. It makes sense, and it probably the
easiest to implement.

> Another possibility (adjacent borders of
> adjacent broken line boxes overlapping):
>
>          +-------------------     [fig 2]
> Several  |emphasized words,
> ---------+-------------------
> enough to break across more
> ---------------+-------------
> than two lines,| appear here.
> ---------------+
>
That would be what happens with negative vertical margins, right?

> And finally, the "around the area defined by the union of
> the broken line boxes" I was trying to explain in my
> original email:
>
>          +------------------+     [fig 3]
> Several  |emphasized words, |
> +--------*                  |  
> |enough to break across more|
> |               *-----------+
> |than two lines,| appear here.
> +---------------+

>
No. I think that is what is intended by the 'outline' properties.

> So, which figure describes what the spec intended, and is that also what
> authors expect(ed)?  Comments?
I would guess that the first is what is closest to the original intent.
It's the easiest to implement, and the most intuitive. Should this be
cleared up and added to the errata page?

- -- 
Ian Hickson - visit web page for geek code
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxieh/
PGP Public Key available on main PGP servers. Fingerprint:
85F7 0D50 A3D1 82AE 4F81  16D4 9670 02D4 7290 F4E0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 5.5.5
Comment: My web site is at http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxieh/

iQA/AwUBNfVs/ZZwAtRykPTgEQJFSgCg3hgi1xAz2IGoQqn87itSBxvZZYoAn1Ak
cJ67mhlx3aSzl5YZwiLxUk4c
=Mc1U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 1998 13:56:35 GMT

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