W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2013

Re: [whatwg] Alignment of empty buttons

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:12:34 +0000 (UTC)
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1311250110010.27139@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On Fri, 22 Nov 2013, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/22/13 9:41 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Sure, <option>s are replaced elements either.
> 
> You mean aren't?

Right. They have nothing to do with CSS.


> Except in UAs where they seem to be, right?

They aren't replaced elements, by the CSS definition in any UA, as far as 
I can tell.


> > I agree that it's vaguer than ideal, and it might be wrong, but it's 
> > not _that_ vague. It says "An element whose content is outside the 
> > scope of the CSS formatting model", and <button>s contents aren't 
> > outside the scope of the CSS formatting model. It seems pretty cut and 
> > dry to me.
> 
> Is <svg:foreignObject> a replaced element?  Why or why not?

No, since the insides of <svg:foreignObject> are clearly in scope of the 
CSS formatting model.


> Maybe my point is that this definition has little to do with what UAs 
> are actually doing...

Well, that's an issue for www-style, I guess.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 01:12:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:14 UTC