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: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:00:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4C6C1FB7.7040909@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 18/08/2010 01:09, fantasai wrote:
> 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.)

> 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.

Hmm, I went through the public mailing list archives in some detail
prior to participating in this clearance discussion, and didn't find
anything.  Are you referring to non-public archives?  If so, would you
be able and willing to post any or all of this discussion publicly?

Anyhow, thanks for the info.  I'll proceed to factor this into my recent
analysis.

Cheers,
Anton
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 18:02:28 GMT

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