- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:43:58 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/02/2011 08:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 3/2/11 11:31 AM, Bert Bos wrote: >> # 2. For other elements, if the element's position is 'relative' >> # or 'static', the containing block is one of the following: >> # >> # a. If an anonymous table-cell is generated to contain the >> # element (i.e., if the parent is a tabular container[2] >> # and the element itself is not a table-cell, see section >> # 17.2.1[3]), then the containing block is the content edge >> # of that anonymous table-cell. >> # >> # b. Otherwise, if the computed value of the parent's 'display' >> # property is 'block', 'list-item', ['inline-table', 'table',] >> # 'caption', 'inline-block', or 'table-cell, then the >> # containing block is the content edge of the parent's >> # principal box. >> # >> # c. Otherwise the containing block is the same as that of the >> # parent. >> >> ... where the bracketed text ['inline-table', 'table',] in (b) is yet to >> be decided. > > That looks pretty good to me at first glance. > > For the table/inline-table bit, the only elements that will fall into case 2b with a parent having that display type are > table-row, table-row/header/footer-group, table-column, table-column-group, and table-caption elements, right? > > It would make sense to use the table as a containing block for those, though I suspect that only table-caption actually cares > about the containing block... So the final text we have right now is a little different than the above. Given that we've removed run-ins, it seems pretty solid to me. Can you take a look and let me know whether there's anything remaining ambiguous? http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/draft-PR-CSS21-201103XX/visudet.html#containing-block-details ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 21:44:32 UTC