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: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:14:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4AC2BF1A.7090604@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 9/29/09 9:50 PM, fantasai wrote:
> I think the spec should be clarified to say that anonymous block boxes
> are never considered to be the containing block of other block boxes.

I would be fine with that.

> I imagine an author would be very confused if the the insertion of a
> div in one part of a block causes a float in another part to size itself
> in a completely different way.

Yes, I agree.

>> I still think that all of 10.1 is ambiguous in any but the most
>> trivial cases that fall under item 2; this is just another example....
>
> Would you like to propose text for a rewrite?

Not without knowing what constraints such text needs to operate under. 
Does it need to describe everything in terms of the element tree but as 
necessary talk about which particular box for an element is used for 
determining the containing block?  Can it describe things in terms of 
boxes directly, and if so are there clear definitions of how different 
boxes are related to each other?

My gut feeling based on Bert's previous responses in related threads is 
that the latter is not really defined and that all containing block 
verbiage needs to be done via identifying the relevant element and then 
identifying the precise relevant box to be used.  Is that correct?

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 02:15:29 GMT

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