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

Re: box tree terminology

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:11:36 -0700
Message-Id: <A6C02C42-A20F-4DFB-ACAD-A348B910582B@gmail.com>
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Sub-box?
Divisions?
Chunks?


Brad Kemper

On Mar 31, 2011, at 1:14 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 03/31/2011 12:23 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:03 PM
>>> 
>>> Explaining how line breaking works. How pagination works. How the borders
>>> and backgrounds are applied to the broken boxes. Etc. I don't have any
>>> specific instances off the top of my head, but I've run across the
>>> terminology issue multiple times when working on CSS2.1 text.
>>> 
>>> In many cases using the term 'element', e.g. "block container element"
>>> doesn't work because we also have to consider anonymous boxes, which split
>>> into multiple boxes, but are still all part of one box.
>> 
>> Maybe it's OK for both kinds of boxes to just be boxes? They have the same
>> nature. If "war and peace" is split into two volumes, each volume is a book
>> and "war and peace" is a book, too, isn't it?
> 
> Yes, but when we need to, we can distinguish "book" and "volume".
> 
> So I guess the question is,
> 
>  book:volume
>  box:?
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 23:12:16 GMT

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