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

Re: [css2.1] Issue 158 and Issue 178 Resolution

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 11:50:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4C5D2C7C.9010806@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Anton Prowse wrote:
> L. David Baron wrote:
>> On Friday 2010-08-06 17:40 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:17 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> That said, I'm not sure that we're interpreting the spec correctly.
>>>> I think we're both presuming that, where bullet point (1) below this
>>>> text says "the border edge" it means "the hypothetical position of
>>>> the border edge".  But I'm actually starting to think that
>>>> assumption is wrong.
>>> All right, I've been considering this.  I don't see anything else that
>>> it could possibly mean, though.
> 
> I think precisely the opposite; I don't see it could possibly mean
> anything *other* than what David suggests.  After all, by the time we're
> doing clearance calculation 2, we've already resumed normal margin
> collapsing

(since you don't need to know what the clearance /is/ in order to resume
normal margin collapsing rules; you just need to know that it exists.)

> and the hypothetical top border edge has disappeared into the
> ether

This argument in favour of the actual border edge is supposing, of
course, that the purpose of clearance is to produce a pleasing result in
the actual rendering (after normal margin collapsing has resumed) rather
than in the imaginary rendering (produced by custom collapsing).  The
whole thing fails to make much sense to me if we're not talking about
the actual rendering when doing clearance calculation 1.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 7 August 2010 09:52:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT