[Bug 17778] Undefined term "block equivalent" used in painting order rules in Appendix E

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17778

--- Comment #3 from Anton P <antonsforums@yahoo.co.uk> 2012-07-14 22:48:10 UTC ---
Since a table element is a block container element (in that its principal table
wrapper box is a block container box), Proposal A fails because table elements
are caught by the first part of Steps 2 and 4 instead of falling through to the
second part.

Proposal B:

In Step 2, replace:

  # If the element is a block, list-item, or other block equivalent:
  #   [...]
  #
  # Otherwise, if the element is a block level table:
  #   [...]

with:

  | If the element is a block level table:
  |   [...]
  |
  | Otherwise, if the element is a block container or block-level
  | replaced element:
  |   [...]

In Step 4, replace:

  # For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level descendants in
  # tree order: If the element is a block, list-item, or other block
  # equivalent:
  #   [...]
  #
  # Otherwise, the element is a table:
  #   [...]

with:

  | For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level descendants in
  | tree order:
  | If the element is a table:
  |   [...]
  |
  | Otherwise, the element is a block container or replaced element:
  |   [...]

Proposal derived from discussion in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0337.html

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 22:48:11 UTC