W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [CSS21] Another ambiguity in the definition of "containing block"

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:56:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4ABFDF7B.2060209@mit.edu>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
CC: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 9/27/09 5:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Well, replacing "ancestor" with "ancestor's" may solve it, I think.
>
> Not really, no.

And just to make that clear, what should be the width of the green box 
in the following testcase?

<!DOCTYPE html>
<div style="display: table; width: 300px">
   <div style="display: table-row;">
     <div style="display: table-cell; width: 100px">x</div>
     <div style="width: 50%; height: 100px; background: green">y</div>
   </div>
</div>

It's 100px wide in Gecko, Webkit, Opera 10, and IE8 (though removing the 
'x' and 'y' changes the rendering in Opera for reasons that I can't 
fathom).  So the anonymous table cell is clearly being the containing 
block in this case.  Why is the anonymous thing the containing block 
here, but not in the anonymous block case?

-Boris
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 21:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT