- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 04:52:28 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Nov 1999 06:09:07 -0800 (PST),
> > @ section
> > 9.7:
> > Relationships between 'display', 'position', and
> > 'float'
>
> > properties and the box's containing block.
> > Otherwise, if 'float' has a value other than
> 'none',
> > 'display' is set to 'block' and the box is
> floated.
> > -----
> > Surely not.
> >
> > Should be:
> > Otherwise, if 'float' has a value other than
> 'none'
> > and display is 'inline', 'display' is set to
> 'block'
> > and the box is floated.
>
> No, it should be as it is now. It also applies when
> display is
> list-item, compact, table, etc.
But "if 'float' has a value other than 'none',
'display' is set to 'block' and the box is
floated", and so list-item, table, etc become
block elements, which can't be right.
> > Also (in calculation of widths of floating
> elements)
> > it should say that if width is omitted from
> floats,
> > should state that refuse to float.
>
> That wouldn't be backwards compatible.
With which browser?
This is no less backward compatible than the CSS spec
itself is backward compatible, in that no browser
conforms to either.
=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 07:52:30 UTC