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

Re: [CSS2.1] Clarifying 8.3.1 Collapsing Margins

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6D799D.6050901@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 08/19/2010 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.)

I suggest you read the edits and dbaron's email before making a
judgement here.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:54:40 GMT

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