W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: box tree terminology

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:12:14 +1100
Message-ID: <4D955EAE.2090208@css-class.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/04/2011 7:14 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 12:23 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:03 PM

>>> In many cases using the term 'element', e.g. "block container element"
>>> doesn't work because we also have to consider anonymous boxes, which
>>> split
>>> into multiple boxes, but are still all part of one box.
>>
>> Maybe it's OK for both kinds of boxes to just be boxes? They have the
>> same
>> nature. If "war and peace" is split into two volumes, each volume is a
>> book
>> and "war and peace" is a book, too, isn't it?
>
> Yes, but when we need to, we can distinguish "book" and "volume".
>
> So I guess the question is,
>
> book:volume
> box:?
>
> ~fantasai


Can we have have an 'anonymous box tree' within the 'box tree'. An 
'element', e.g. "block container element" is a box in the 'box tree' 
where an 'anonymous box' is a box within the 'anonymous box tree'.



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 05:12:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT