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: Jan Roland Eriksson <d.tek.jre@ebox.tninet.se>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1998 19:38:06 GMT
To: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <35f68254.12055334@pop.tninet.se>
On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 21:36:03 -0700, Tantek Celik
<tantek@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

> > 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...

> 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):

Only and _absolutely_ only if the line-height property has been set to a
value greater than 1.0 of current font height. The padding property
could then be used to "close" the "gap" between lines again of course.

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

>             fig. 2

That's the way it should be for { line-height: normal; padding: 0 }
(i.e. for their initial values) where I would like "normal" to be equal
to exactly 1em. I just hate it when browsers introduce uncontrollable
vertical whitespace of their own.

> 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

n/a in this case

> So, which figure describes what the spec intended,

If the specs intended something else than fig.2 above the spec authors
should probably try to refresh their typographical knowledge ;-)

> and is that also what authors expect(ed)?

I'm a typical author, with some "old time lead" experience, and I want
fig.2 to be the correct one. I suggest vertical whitespace inclusion,
not the browser.

-- 
Jan Roland Eriksson <rex@css.nu>
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 1998 15:43:28 GMT

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