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

Re: [CSS21] Disposition of Comments (Issue 225, 229 etc)

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 08:57:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9EB1C5.80207@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 07/04/2011 23:18, fantasai wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 12:50 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>>
>> It covers all the cases, certainly. (Although you mean last /in-flow/
>> child.) But I'm not too happy about talking about the
>> top edge of the collapsed margin, because 8.3.1 actually fails to
>> explain where a collapsed margin sits in relation to the
>> border edge positions of the elements involved. Quibbly, I know, but
>> nothing in 8.3.1 says that a collapsed margin between an
>> element and its last in-flow child doesn't sit /between/ the last
>> child's bottom border edge and the element's bottom border
>> edge, for example. Rather, we're relying on this 10.6.3 text to tell
>> us that that's not the case. Hence 10.6.3 shouldn't
>> define height in terms of the the top edge of a collapsed margin.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> | If the element has children, its height is the distance from its
>> | top content edge to the first applicable of the following:
>> | * the bottom edge of the last line box, if the box establishes a
>> | inline formatting context with one or more lines
>> | * the bottom edge of the bottom (possibly collapsed) margin of
>> | its last in-flow child, if the child's bottom margin does not
>> | collapse with the element's bottom margin
>> | * the bottom border edge of the lattermost in-flow child whose top
>> | and bottom margins do not collapse
>> | * zero, otherwise
>>
>> [CSS3 might introduce some kind of in-flow block-level element whose
>> bottom margin doesn't collapse with its subsequent
>> sibling's top margin. If that happens, we'll need to modify the third
>> item (in the equivalent text in Basic Box Model 3) to
>> say "bottom margin edge" instead of "bottom border edge" of such
>> elements.]
>
> Ok, if we're going to be quibbly, here's an update that avoids
> "lattermost":
>
> Replace the third and fourth paragraphs of 10.6.3 with:
>
> | The element's height is the distance from its top content edge to the
> | first applicable of the following:
> | * the bottom edge of the last line box, if the box establishes a
> | inline formatting context with one or more lines
> | * the bottom edge of the bottom (possibly collapsed) margin of
> | its last in-flow child, if the child's bottom margin does not
> | collapse with the element's bottom margin
> | * the bottom border edge of the last in-flow child whose top
> | margin doesn't collapse with the element's bottom margin
> | * zero, otherwise
>
> Do we win yet? :)

Yeah, go on then :-)

"Lattermost" (which I despise but couldn't dislodge!) was an attempt to 
avoid ambiguity: it's possible to interpret "...of the last in-flow 
child whose..." as saying that the item is only applicable if the actual 
last in-flow child satisfies the conditions given by "whose", instead of 
the intended interpretation of being the, er, lattermost (latest?) child 
which does satisfy those conditions.

But I think that the intended interpretation is the one which comes 
across most strongly from your wording, so let's just go with that.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 06:57:38 GMT

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