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: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:47:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4D8A4035.4060304@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
On 23/03/2011 08:23, fantasai wrote:
> 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.)

A fair point.

>> 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. :)

This seems to be exactly what we want!  And, in general, I think the WG 
shouldn't shy away from making notes such as this.

Anton Prowse
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2011 18:47:56 UTC

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