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

Re: [CSS21] Another ambiguity in the definition of "containing block"

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:04:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4C196685.1070607@inkedblade.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/29/2009 07:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 9/29/09 9:50 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> I think the spec should be clarified to say that anonymous block boxes
>> are never considered to be the containing block of other block boxes.
>
> I would be fine with that.
>
>> I imagine an author would be very confused if the the insertion of a
>> div in one part of a block causes a float in another part to size itself
>> in a completely different way.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>>> I still think that all of 10.1 is ambiguous in any but the most
>>> trivial cases that fall under item 2; this is just another example....
>>
>> Would you like to propose text for a rewrite?
>
> Not without knowing what constraints such text needs to operate under.
> Does it need to describe everything in terms of the element tree but as
> necessary talk about which particular box for an element is used for
> determining the containing block? Can it describe things in terms of
> boxes directly, and if so are there clear definitions of how different
> boxes are related to each other?
>
> My gut feeling based on Bert's previous responses in related threads is
> that the latter is not really defined and that all containing block
> verbiage needs to be done via identifying the relevant element and then
> identifying the precise relevant box to be used. Is that correct?

I don't know. The best thing to do might be to write it however makes
sense to you, and then I'll try to make sense of it and rerender it
into spec prose, like we did for anonymous table boxes. :)

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 00:04:54 GMT

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