W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2002

Re: canvas <html> <body>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:53:52 +0100
Message-ID: <3CE81EF0.7060705@hixie.ch>
To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Etan Wexler wrote:
 > Ian Hickson wrote regarding CSS2:
 >> But the root element establishes a containing block simply by
 >> virtue of being the root element. Section 10.1 is quit clear on
 >> this. I propose we strike the conflicting section in chapter 9.
 > I would agree that CSS2 section 10.1 is clear except that my
 > understanding of it differs from yours. Section 10.1 reads:
 >     The containing block (called the initial containing block) in
 >     which the root element lives is chosen by the user agent.
 > That passage indicates that [...] there is no requirement that the
 > root element's boxes establish the containing block.

"the" containing block? I said _a_ containing block. From 10.1:

# 2. For other elements, unless the element is absolutely positioned,
#    the containing block is formed by the content edge of the nearest
#    block-level ancestor box.

...and so on.

The root element isn't special, except you have to know where to put
it. That is, you need to know its containing block.

 > Surely a user agent conforming to that passage could base the
 > initial containing block on the root element's boxes rather than
 > fitting the root element's boxes into a previously chosen initial
 > containing block.

There is no practical difference. Using the concepts as described in
10.1 (root element in the initial containing block) is conceptually
simpler to describe.

 > Section 9.1.2 reads:
 >     The root of the document tree generates a box that serves as the
 >     initial containing block for subsequent layout.
 > Did you mean to strike the passage in section 10.1? That would seem
 > more in the vein of your previous comments.


Ian Hickson
``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to
the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will
probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense
without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Sunday, 19 May 2002 17:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:01 UTC