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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:53:16 -0500
Message-ID: <4D6E75FC.1060405@mit.edu>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
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...

-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 16:54:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT