W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2006

Re: [css21] Collapsing margins

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:03:08 -0800
Message-ID: <011001c636bd$40f7ac50$3201a8c0@comp>
To: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Miller" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [css21] Collapsing margins

> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> |
> |> You are speaking about two boxes but [css21] is
> |> using singular form:  "a box":
> |
> |> "If the top and bottom margins of a box are adjoining, then it is
> |> possible for margins to collapse through it."
> |
> |> So it could be literally read as:
> |> "margins of a zero height box may collapse through it"
> |
> |> Is this a meaning of the phrase? collapse through what?
> |
> Yeah, looking at the spec, that point is describing the situation where
> the block element has no height, and therefore the top and bottom
> margins are right next to each other (and collapse together).  That's
> why it uses the singular "box".

Kelly, beg my pardon, but your explanation makes things even worse for me:
"are right next to each other (and collapse together)."

Either they next to each other - either they collapse (overlap).

Let's put aside task of HTML rendering on Moebius
stripe surface. The only situtaion when 
"If the top and bottom margins of a box are adjoining" is then 
box has zero height.  Why not just say so? 

It remainds me definition:
"That spot where human back starts loosing its name".

But I suspect that meaning of the original phrase[1] in CSS21  
is completely different this is why I am asking....

Andrew Fedoniouk.

[1]  http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/box.html#collapsing-margins
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 08:03:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:23 UTC