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

Re: [CSS21] Issue 142: the term "ancestor box"

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:43:58 -0700
Message-ID: <4D96471E.5080106@inkedblade.net>
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?


Received on Friday, 1 April 2011 21:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC