W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2007

RE: [CSS21] CR-CSS21-20070719, 8.3.1 Collapsing in presence of min/max-height, small correction suggested

From: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:03:17 +0200
To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000d01c80ef1$1c65cd00$6905a8c0@bruno>

L. David Baron wrote:

> On Sunday 2007-10-14 21:28 +0200, Bruno Fassino wrote:
> > "The bottom margin of an in-flow block-level element with a
> > 'height' of 'auto' and 'min-height' less than the element's
> > used height and 'max-height' greater than the element's used
> > height is adjoining to its last in-flow
> > block-level child's bottom margin..."
> >
> > I suggest the following small corrections:
> > - "less than" should be "less than or equal" (or "not
> > greater than")
> > - "greater than" should be "greater than or equal" (or "not
> > less than")
> This change looks wrong.
> The intent was that the conditions exclude cases where min-height or
> max-height affects the used height.

Yes, I agree on this. And I believe that cases when the min-height is
"equal" to the used height are cases when min-height is not affecting the
used height. So I believe that this case ("equal") should be added to the
mentioned case, which means:
 "min-height less than the element's used height"
 "min-height less than or equal the element's used height"

In other words, the only cases to leave out are those when min-height is
strictly greater than the used height, because only in those cases
min-height is affecting the height, and collapsing is not wanted. Similarly
for max-height.

> If you change them to "or equal" then those cases are also included,
> and the only height:auto case that is excluded is the case where
> min-height > max-height.

I don't think so, all cases with:
 min-height > used_height  OR  max_height < used_height
will still be excluded (no collapsing).
The reverse of the above:
 min-height <= used_height  AND  max_height >= used_height
will be included (collapsing allowed).

The suggested change is really a small thing, maybe I wasn't clear in my
previous message.

Best regards,

Bruno Fassino http://www.brunildo.org/test
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 06:03:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:31 UTC