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

Re: box tree terminology

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:28:05 -0700
Message-ID: <4D92CD75.8010901@inkedblade.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 03/29/2011 08:38 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> Exactly as you say, line breaking and pagination can create multiple
> rendering things for one element.
>
> When it is in fact broken between pages, is there any reason to refer
> as a separate singular concept to whatever thing would have been there
> if there weren't a page break?

It's not the thing that would have been there that needs a term, it's
the rendering object itself. An anonymous block box, for example, can
be broken across pages just like a regular block box. It's still one
box, and you can't reflow lines across its boundary, but it's multiple
boxes now that we've broken it.. The top of a block box has a border,
as does the bottom, but if it breaks across pages the first box of the
box has the top border and the last box of the box has the bottom
border. The containing block is formed by the padding edges of the block
box, not by the padding edges of the boxes that make up the block box
when it is paginated.

Etc.

It gets kindof awkward. :)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2011 06:28:40 GMT

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