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

Re: Issue 158 proposed text

From: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 06:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTilTwSRQ_5cP-MYiOJrAabuYemMQ8OC2inkv9Em3@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:26 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
> I'd suggest replacing point 2
[...]
>
> with
>
>  | The amount necessary to place the element's top border edge at its
>  | hypothetical position.
>
> which I believe was the intent of the calculations specified in 2.


This is fine since it makes all simpler and eliminates a source of
inconsistency.
However IMO, it remains the fact that the "hypothetical position" is
not precisely defined:

# This position is determined after the top margin of the element
#  has been collapsed with previous adjacent margins

what are exactly the "previous adjacent margins" ?

As I mentioned at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0509.html, what
about an adjacent top margin of the first inflow child of the element?
 Does it enter in the set of "previous adjacent margins"?
It does not according to a naive reading of "previous", but I doubt
that the spec intention were to exclude it from the hypothetical
position computation.

Bruno

-- 
Bruno Fassino http://www.brunildo.org/test
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 04:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT