RE: Pixels 'n points (CSS1 browser test)
> Chris Lilley [SMTP:Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr] wrote:
>On Jun 27, 11:18am, Chris Wilson (PSD) wrote:
>> Douglas Rand [SMTP:email@example.com] wrote:
>> >builds the rendering structure checks for displayFLOAT for inline or
>> >block elements (my internal value for the property) and sticks the
>> >content in a floater container. It's relatively simple and few
>> True; but we can't alter the document structure like that,
>It isn't altering the document structure. It isn't even dynamically
>modifying the stylesheet.
It is not intended to alter the SGML document structure, but hey,
"sticks the content in a floater container" sure sounds like it's doing
something to the internal document structure to me.
>> because we
>> need to be able to persist. (The HTML rendering engine in IE4 is
>> an authoring system - e.g. it's used by Outlook Express, the email
>> client in IE4.)
>I don't see how that would conflict with being able to statically
>floated elements in a style sheet.
Sorry, my message was apparently a little muddled. We cannot simply
stick in the easy floating container that almost everyone has
implemented (a single-celled table), because that would alter the
document structure, and without a fairly significant coding effort would
probably be indistinguishable from a real single-celled table, which
would cause us major problems when we go to persist the document. I'm
not saying this is an external problem; but it is a significant
requirement on our implementation. Consider this an apology for this
not being an easy problem for us if you wish.
>> >I think some properties actually *are* problematic, for example
>> >vertical-align applied to textual objects in paragraph flows really
>> >only modest sense. The definition of vertical-align also doesn't
>> >correspond to common practice, started with Mosaic, of carrying
>> >top and bottom text limits for the line as the line is formatted
>> >left to right. Thus vertical-align can lead to circular
>> >which is not good, IMO.
>> I agree whole-heartedly with you on this one.
>So, you would fix this how?
Sorry, I don't have the time to address this at great length right now;
try me again in a couple of weeks. I guess my primary problem is that
there are a few things left unsaid about how vertical-align will affect
the parent's line box height. Perhaps all that is needed to clear my
mind is the right set of diagrams - it's unclear to me on closer
examination whether there are circular references or not.