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

Re: [CSS 2.1] static position of an absolutely positioned element with auto-offsets

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:38:53 -0700
Message-ID: <484D94DD.3060509@inkedblade.net>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>
CC: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> This passage in the spec is actually one of my favorites. "free to make a guess" is a great way
> to define things!
> 
> On IE behavior:
> 
> * in IE up to IE7, "static" position of a positioned object is determined as if it was an inline
> element with zero width. When this was implemented (many years ago) we believed that since
> absolute elements always become blocks, it is logical to produce same result for absolutely
> positioned blocks and inlines.
> 
> * However, by now there appears to be a consensus in other browser that static position for a
> block element on the next line, as if it was in fact a block.
> 
> * IE8 (in standards mode) changes the guessing algorithm to also pay attention to "display"
> property and put static position of a block in the next line, with appropriate alignment.
> 
> On the spec:
> 
> It is hard to define exactly what position an element "would have had" in normal flow because if
> it was in flow it would affect the document. The only way to define that precisely is to actually
> layout with the element in flow, take its position, then relayout without the element. That would
> be costly, and most likely less predictable.

I believe this was the reason the "free to make a guess" wording was used here.

Alex, do we need to make a clarification here to avoid the IE<8 interpretation?
I would have expected that the "if its 'position' property had been 'static'"
bit would require guessing the position using the specified (not used) display
property.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 20:39:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:07 GMT