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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:09:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6B1697.3020806@inkedblade.net>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 08/14/2010 11:02 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>  > * The amount necessary to place the top border edge of the block
>  > even with the previously computed hypothetical position of the top
>  > border edge of the element. (Informative Note: This is necessary to
>  > handle the case where the float moves due to the element's top
>  > margin no longer collapsing with previous margins.)
> (This is assuming – reasonably, I think – that that's what the equation
> in Calculation 2 really is trying to say.) It also probably wants to
> say "border edge", not "previously computed hypothetical position of
> border edge"; more on this in my upcoming post and below.
> As to why I like this approach: the problem with having an equation
> rather than a statement of intended result is that you then have to
> worry about whether the equation is correct (which is precisely what got
> us into this mess in the first place).... And seeing as the spec
> doesn't require us to know the actual clearance value at any point, I
> don't see any need to fuss about with equations at all.

We do know, based on the CSSWG's archives, that the rewording above
is the original intent of Calculation 2. I had in fact suggested
replacing Ian's rather convoluted calculation with the following
at that time:

   |  2. The amount necessary to place the border edge of the block
   |     at its hypothetical position.

The intent is exactly to ensure that the clearing element does not
move upwards as a result of clearing.

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 23:09:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:37 UTC