W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

Re: [cssom-view] New WD "CSSOM View Module"

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:27:21 +0100
To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t65vrvuc64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:09:08 +0100, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>  
wrote:
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> quirks mode.
>
> Where are the tests in CSS1Compat mode?

That DOCTYPE does not trigger quirks mode.


> What's needed is an automated test. I've already gotten started on
> one, but I want to host it not on my site, but somewhere with a
> repository so tests can be CRUD'd by multiple users.

Maybe start a Google code project?


>>  Yes, this specification tries to find a middle ground.
>
> As a result, it is broken/useless.

I think I disagree. There may be some areas that are in need of  
clarification (and I've made some edits earlier to that effect), but other  
parts are already being used by implementors.


>> I'm not sure what
>>  you mean with contradicting CSS 2.1. Where does that happen?
>
> The part that contradicts CSS2.1 the CSSOM spec says:
> "If any of the following holds true return null and stop this algorithm:
> ...
> " A is the HTML body element."
>
> CSS2.1, 10.1 Definition of "containing block"
> "... if the element's position is 'relative' or 'static', the
> containing block is formed by the content edge of the nearest
> block-level, table cell or inline-block ancestor box."
>
> It is contradictory because:
> A positioned element forms an offsetParent. If body has position
> static, it is not a positioned element. How can BODY be an
> offsetParent?

I don't see why offsetParent needs to be the containing block.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 02:22:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT