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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:36:17 -0400
Message-ID: <4D96B5D1.5040400@mit.edu>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/2/11 1:14 AM, fantasai wrote:
> Right, but the rectangle is defined by referencing a box.

Sort of.  In some of the cases.  But not in others.

>> I think we all know what we mean here, but we're not actually putting
>> it into the spec. If I had to implement the current text
>> without the various background I know, I'd at best get it wrong and at
>> worst be very very confused and then get it even more
>> wrong.
>
> How else would you interpret that sentence in 9.2.1.1?

That depends on how confused I got.  I'm having a pretty hard time doing 
the thought experiment, given what I do happen to know about our intentions.

> I'd probably just tack on
>
> | For the purpose of resolving percentage values (only), the containing
> | block is determined while ignoring _anonymous block boxes_[9.2.1.1].
>
> instead of splitting the item, but that should amount to the same thing,
> yes?

If you have enough context, I suppose.  I think my formulation leads to 
a much more readable spec, personally.  Do we have a word count limit?  ;)

-Boris
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2011 05:36:51 GMT

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