W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css2.1] Issue 161 revised proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:31:35 -0700
Message-Id: <59DB9004-7E6C-4561-B712-B50602248C67@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:24 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Per my action item from the FtF, I am revising the proposal to address
> Issue 161.
>
> Issue 161 concerns section 11.1 of the CSS 2.1 spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html).  Specifically, the line "A
> descendant box is positioned absolutely, partly outside the box. Such
> boxes are not always clipped by the overflow property on their
> ancestors." has been cited as being confusing, as it may imply that
> absolutely positioned elements (those with position:absolute or
> position:fixed) don't ever get clipped by an overflow:hidden ancestor.
>
> My proposed change is to replace that line with:
>
> "A descendant box is positioned absolutely, partly outside the box.
> Such boxes are not always clipped by the overflow property on their
> ancestors; specifically, they are not clipped by the overflow of any
> ancestor between themselves and their nearest positioned ancestor."

That is clearer. But since there may not be any positioned ancestor,  
it would be better to say "containing block" instead of "nearest  
positioned ancestor".

Also, in the bullet right before that one, "i.e." should be changed to  
"e.g.", or else "max-height" should be mentioned too.
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 00:32:18 GMT

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