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

Re: [css3-content] ::outside become "containing block"

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:21:15 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimgWzug49xylnpx4FVk4iQkNiLSjxUci0GUBmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 6/10/10 12:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> Just from the spec, though, this area is underdefined.  I *suspect*
>> that ::outside's containing block is its superior's containing block,
>> and that it can (when appropriate) be the containing block for its
>> superior, exactly as if you'd simply wrapped the superior in a<div>.
>
> Note that the first clause of that last sentence is contradicts the last
> one, if one does something like "foo::outside { position: absolute; }" say
> when foo itself is not positioned.
>
> The last clause is the one that would make the most sense from an authoring
> perspective.

Yeah, improper generalization.  Just saying "its containing block is
exactly the containing block of an identically-styled <div> wrapping
the superior" is likely correct.


>> (Personally, I suspect an ::inside pseudo would work better.  It would
>> wrap the superior's children, rather than wrapping the superior
>> itself.)
>
> Offhand, that seems like it would be easier to implement, but doesn't work
> well for replaced elements, whereas ::outside doesn't care what it's
> wrapping.

True.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 16:22:15 GMT

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