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

Re: [CSS2.1] Clarifying 8.3.1 Collapsing Margins

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:27:58 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+-1Agv+e7ZvEjAHQ=2+tdV-k5vyQ7Q9QrHbg4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> On 18/08/2010 10:11, fantasai wrote:
>>  | Vertical margins collapse if they are adjoining, except:
>>  |   * Margins of the root element's box do not collapse.
>>  |   * If the top and bottom margins of an element with clearance are
>>  |     adjoining, its margins collapse with the adjoining margins of
>>  |     subsequent siblings but that resulting margin does not collapse
>>  |     with the bottom margin of the parent block.
>
> The margins may not be mutually adjoining (indeed, frequently won't be
> now that the concept is intransitive) yet they may still collapse.  The
> sentence needs reformulating in terms of collapsing.  (Not easy to do
> elegantly, unfortunately.)

This doesn't make sense.  Adjoining-ness *must* be a transitive
relationship.  If Fantasai's edits are introducing additional
intransitive-ness rather than fixing the intransitive-ness that
currently exists, that's a huge bug.

(An intransitive definition of adjoining is simply nonsensical.  The
only result of that would be inconsistent casting back to a transitive
definition.)

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:28:59 GMT

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