- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:12:34 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- 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