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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:25:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4890DC2C.5070403@inkedblade.net>
To: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>

Bruno Fassino wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote:
>>> Arron Eicholz wrote:
>>>>> I don't think it makes sense for margins that aren't anywhere
>>>>> close to being "adjoining" to collapse.
>>>> So... new issue: in
>>>>   <div style="height: 500px;">
>>>>     <div style="height: 10px;"/>
>>>>   </div>
>>>> We can't find anything in the spec that says these margins aren't
>>>> adjoining
> [...]
> 
>> Maybe what's missing is a rule that says that an element with a 'height'
>> other than 'auto' doesn't collapse its bottom margin with its children.
> 
> 
> If I understand well, the following paragraph in 8.3.1, which lists
> the conditions under which there is such collapsing, already mentions
> that height must be auto:
> 
> "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 if the element has
> no bottom padding or border."
> 
> I assumed that paragraph was meant as listing the _only_ cases under
> which that collapsing/adjoining occurs. If this is its meaning, then
> 'height not auto' already excludes adjoining.

Fair enough. I'll mark that retracted then.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2008 21:25:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT