- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:47:32 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:19:56 +0200, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> wrote: > This is proposed text for issue 142[1]. Section 10.1 uses the term > "ancestor box," by which it means the "box of an ancestor element." But > apparently the term causes confusion. That is probably because in some > cases and in some implementations the boxes form a tree. (CSS doesn't > say that the boxes form a tree, only that each box is associated with an > element and the elements form a tree.) > > So here is a rewrite to avoid the term. The following all occur in > section 10.1: There's also "In the case that the ancestor is an inline box". > - Replace the first occurrence of "ancestor box" by "ancestor > element". An element doesn't have a content edge, a box does. The assumption here seems to be that an element cannot generate more than one block container box. I guess that might be true in level 2, but it seems like a statement that level 3 specs can very easily end up breaking... > [1] http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-142 -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 16:46:09 UTC