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

Re: canvas <html> <body>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:34:57 +0100
Message-ID: <3CE933C1.4090604@hixie.ch>
To: Andrew Clover <and@doxdesk.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Andrew Clover wrote:
> 
> There *is* a practical difference, it *is* affecting people's layouts
> today, and it *should* be cleared up. Mozilla, IE6/Win, IE5/Mac
> and Opera 6 are all generating different results in a way that is
> confusing web authors, most particularly when they try to
> position/size a non-fixed-positioned element relative to the height
> of the viewport, which is very commonly desired.

That has nothing to do with whether the root element is the ICB or if the root 
element is in the ICB. They are all bugs in the implementations.


> If the root element *generates* the ICB, then the ICB is as high
> as its in-flow child content requires, and setting a %age height
> on the root element gives unspecified results.

It's only unspecified if the spec doesn't explicitly state what should happen. I 
do, however, believe that the simplest way of specifying it is just to say that 
the root element is in the ICB. That's what I meant by the "Using the concepts 
as described in 10.1 (root element in the initial containing block) is 
conceptually simpler to describe".


> If the root element is *contained* by the ICB, then the ICB's
> height is "chosen by the user agent" (does this mean "undefined"
> or "as high as the viewport"?).

It means "unspecified", just as with the previous case.

As you can see, they are equivalent.


> This affects all absolutely-positioned elements not nested in
> another positioned element, when top, bottom or height is a
> percentage.

Actually it doesn't affect any absolutely positioned element, since the spec 
should IMHO be further corrected to state that percentages on those properties 
are always defined. It is only percentages on the 'height' property of inflow 
children that causes any problems.

-- 
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 Monday, 20 May 2002 13:35:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:14 GMT