From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:56:28 +0100

Message-ID: <49C689DC.608@moonhenge.net>

To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:56:28 +0100

Message-ID: <49C689DC.608@moonhenge.net>

To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Hi, I think CSS2.1 contains a paradox as regards clearance. Recently on this list,[1] Bert Bos provided the following demonstration of clearance calculations. He wrote: ---- Assume (for the sake of simplicity), that we have just three boxes, in this order: block B1 with a bottom margin of M1 (B1 has no children and no padding or border), floating block F with a height H, and block B2 with a top margin of M2 (no padding or border, no children). We also assume B2 is not empty. Without considering the 'clear' property on B2, we have the situation in the diagram below. The margins of B1 and B2 collapse. Let's say the bottom border edge of B1 is at y = 0, then the top of F is at y = M1, the top border edge of B2 is at y = max(M1,M2), and the bottom of F is at y = M1 + H. | | | | | B1 | |_ 0 |_____________________| | |_ M1 _______ | | | |_ max(M1,M2) | F | ____________ | | | | |_ M1+H |_______| | | | | | B2 | | | | We also assume that B2 is not below F, i.e., we are in the situation described in the spec where we need to add clearance. That means: max(M1,M2) < M1 + H The spec says that we need to compute clearance C twice, C1 and C2, and keep the greater of the two: C = max(C1,C2). The first way is to put the top of B2 flush with the bottom of F, i.e., at y = M1 + H. That means, because the margins no longer collapse with a clearance between them: bottom of F = top border edge of B2 <=> M1 + H = M1 + C1 + M2 <=> C1 = M1 + H - M1 - M2 = H - M2 ---- But there is an assumption being made here that margin collapsing is prevented, in other words, that C1 is non-zero or equivalently that H != M2. When H = M2 (which happens to be what the diagram actually shows!) we have a problem: if clearance is zero then margins collapse and so clearance is non-zero; but if clearance is non-zero then margins don't collapse and the clearance needed is zero. The interaction between clearance and margin collapsing requires several irksome special cases, and leads to strange ideas such as negative clearance. I would be really grateful if someone could explain why the change was made[2] from clearance implemented as a change in margin value to clearance implemented as an addition of spacing. I'm sure there must be tricky edge-cases which expose problems with the original implementation, but it's hard to evaluate the strength of the new implementation without knowing what these edge cases are. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0108.html [2] http://dbaron.org/log/2007-03#e20070329a Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.netReceived on Sunday, 22 March 2009 18:57:24 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:25 UTC
*