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

Re: [CSS21] Description of clearance issue [285] that's incorrectly folded into Issue 203

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:23:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4D899FD9.9060702@inkedblade.net>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
On 03/22/2011 12:53 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 22/03/2011 20:19, fantasai wrote:
>> On 03/21/2011 01:32 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>>> The subsequent URI, Testcases, Resolution and Status should be filed
>>> as a new Issue, whose summary should be "Problems with
>>> the second clearance calculation" or similar
>
>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-285
>
>> we do not have enough time to evaluate web compat and make an appropriate decision.
>
> OK (although I note that the second calculation was only introduced in 2007 when it was believed that the spec was pretty much
> finished, so there must have been more willingness to take the risk at that time).

(But it wasn't anywhere close to PR because we didn't have a test suite.)

> If the second calculation is to be made optional, please can the following requests be considered:
>
> (a) David's post [1] be listed as a URL for Issue 285, since it succinctly describes what the problem is.
>
> (b) The Resolution to Issue 285 be edited to remove reference to Acid2 and introduce the reasoning that fantasai gives above.
>
> (c) The resolution be changed from permitting "calculation of hypothetical position with respect to the parent block" to
> permitting the second calculation to be omitted. It would be a significant editorial failure to not make it clear that the
> choice of positioning reference is exactly equivalent to the choice of whether to perform the second calculation; we're
> starting to make real progress in clarifying this part of the spec, and so it would be a shame to take a step backwards.

Done.
   http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-285

Since we don't have any proposed text yet, just a resolution,

Proposal:

   1. Remove "within its parent block".
   2. Add after the 2-item list:
        "Alternatively, clearance is set exactly to the amount necessary to
         place the border edge of the block even with the bottom outer edge
         of the lowest float that is to be cleared."
   3. Add a note:
        "Note: Both behaviors are allowed pending evaluation of their compatibility
         with existing Web content. A future CSS specification will require either
         one or the other."

If I understand correctly, this will implement the given resolution. Please correct
me if I am wrong. :)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 07:23:41 GMT

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