W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [CSS21] 10.1 Containing block: when "the ancestor is an inline element": editorial improvements

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:39:02 -0400
Message-ID: <496b043a8a81290cf6e98939df4c53cb.squirrel@webmail.moonhenge.net>
To: "W3C www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: www-style@gtalbot.org
> Hello,
>
> Section 10.1, bullet 4 (with sub-bullets 1 and 2)
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details
>
> Current text is:
>
> {
> 4. If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
> established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' of 'absolute',
> 'relative' or 'fixed', in the following way:
>
>   1.  In the case that the ancestor is an inline element, the containing
> block is the bounding box around the padding boxes of the first and the
> last inline boxes generated for that element. In CSS 2.1, if the inline
> element is split across multiple lines, the containing block is
> undefined.
>   2.  Otherwise, the containing block is formed by the padding edge of the
> ancestor.
> }
>
>
> Proposed replacement (the pairs of ** indicate where editorial changes
> would be):
>
> {
> 4. If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
> established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' of 'absolute',
> 'relative' or 'fixed', in the following way:
>
>   1. *In case such nearest positioned ancestor is an inline element, then*
> the containing block is the bounding box around the padding boxes of
> the first and the last inline boxes generated for that element. In CSS
> 2.1, if the inline element is split across multiple lines, the containing
> block is undefined.
>
>   2. *In case such nearest positioned ancestor is a block container, then*
> the containing block is formed by the padding edge of such block
> container.
> }
>
>
> What can definitely create confusion and misinterpretation is this
> proposition:
> "In the case that the ancestor is an inline element (...)"
> when the proposition should at least explicitly identify such ancestor as
> "the nearest positioned ancestor".

I don't think there is much scope for confusion. The first paragraph
describes the properties of the ancestor in question; if the
"ancestor" in the subsequent paragraphs were not interpreted to be
the same as that described in the first paragraph, then that first
paragraph wouldn't make sense!

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 17:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:52 GMT