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

Re: Issue 158 proposed text

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 07:43:41 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikrnWqIzrGlhv2bQLJB6QNAvqrCirlP2V3JChb8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we choose the second option, the first paragraph of that section
>> would instead look like this:
>>
>> | Computing the clearance of an element on which 'clear' is set is
>> | done by first determining the hypothetical position of the element's
>> | top border edge within its parent block.  This position is
>> | determined after the top margin of the element has been collapsed
>> | with all appropriate adjoining margins per normal margin-collapse
>> | rules, except that the clearing element's top margin is not allowed
>> | to collapse with the clearing element's bottom margin.
>
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure to agree with:
>  "except that the clearing element's top margin is not allowed to
> collapse with the clearing element's bottom margin"...
> Based on what I said before I would rather change that with:
>  "but assuming that the clearing element has a non-zero bottom border"
> which excludes from the computation of the hypothetical position the
> clearing element's bottom margin _and_ margins of following siblings.
> But this is probably different from what you wanted to say.

Nah, that's equivalent.  Saying "assume the element has a non-zero
bottom border", though, is just an indirect way of saying "don't let
the element's top and bottom margins collapse together", which is what
we actually want.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 14:44:39 GMT

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