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

Re: [CSS21] Disposition of Comments (Issue 225, 229 etc)

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:59:16 +0100
Message-ID: <4F2D2BA4.1010603@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 08/04/2011 08:57, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 07/04/2011 23:18, fantasai wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 12:50 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:

>>> How about:
>>>
>>> | If the element has children, its height is the distance from its
>>> | top content edge to the first applicable of the following:
>>> | * the bottom edge of the last line box, if the box establishes a
>>> | inline formatting context with one or more lines
>>> | * the bottom edge of the bottom (possibly collapsed) margin of
>>> | its last in-flow child, if the child's bottom margin does not
>>> | collapse with the element's bottom margin
>>> | * the bottom border edge of the lattermost in-flow child whose top
>>> | and bottom margins do not collapse
>>> | * zero, otherwise

>> [...] here's an update that avoids "lattermost":
>>
>> Replace the third and fourth paragraphs of 10.6.3 with:
>>
>> | The element's height is the distance from its top content edge to the
>> | first applicable of the following:
>> | * the bottom edge of the last line box, if the box establishes a
>> | inline formatting context with one or more lines
>> | * the bottom edge of the bottom (possibly collapsed) margin of
>> | its last in-flow child, if the child's bottom margin does not
>> | collapse with the element's bottom margin
>> | * the bottom border edge of the last in-flow child whose top
>> | margin doesn't collapse with the element's bottom margin
>> | * zero, otherwise
>>
>> Do we win yet? :)
>
> Yeah, go on then :-)

Although we iterated to this solution as an agreeable rewording of my 
original proposal in [1], unfortunately I've now noticed that this new 
wording  which became the resolution to Issue 225 and was added to the 
spec  is an unfaithful representation of the original proposal and 
hence is incorrect. :-(

A parent whose final two in-flow children consist of a self-collapsing 
element C with clearance followed by a self-collapsing element without 
clearance has its bottom content edge incident with the bottom *margin* 
edge of C not the bottom *border* edge of C, so (3) is wrong.

In the spirit of the editorial format above, I think that a correct 
rewording of the original proposal would be to replace (2) and (3) above 
as follows:

   | 2.  the bottom border edge of the last in-flow child whose
   |     bottom margin but not top margin collapses with the
   |     element's bottom margin
   | 3.  the bottom margin edge of the last in-flow child whose
   |     bottom margin does not collapse with the element's
   |     bottom margin

I've filed this at https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15777#c2

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2012 12:59:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT