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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-04-21

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:15:32 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF22274.1020909@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/17/10 6:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Just to make sure, you're talking about this, right?:
>
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <body>
>    <span style="display: table-cell">a</span>
>    <span style="float: left"></span>
>    <span style="display: table-cell">b</span>
> </body>
>
> In this case, step 2 of fantasai's revised algorithm won't do anything
> special with the float

Sure; that's what matches UA behavior.  But why aren't you out to 
redefine that like you are other parts of the behavior?  ;)

> (Also, it might be debatable whether or not 3.1 would actually respond
> to the float.  Defining floats as "out-of-flow" is the problem here -
> as written, step 3.1 could be interpreted as wrapping all three
> <span>s in a table-row, even though the float is *still* not either a
> table-cell or wrapped in one.  It could also be interpreted as saying
> to wrap the two table-cells in a table-row, but not the float, which
> doesn't make any sense in terms of the box tree.)

There are all sorts of things that make no sense in terms of the "box 
tree" that CSS calls for (and Bert keeps insisting it's not a tree, note).

>> Yes, yes you do....  Either that or make it very clear what you actually
>> mean.
>
> Sure.  Do you have a preference on which I should do?  I can go either way.

Not terribly as long as it's well-defined.  Note that I'm still not at 
all convinced this change is even desirable, so I'm probably not the 
best person to ask to refine its detailed wording; I don't actually care 
enough so far.

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 05:21:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT