Re: comments on WD-css3-box-20010726

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Bert Bos wrote:
> Finding good ALT values is hard. I'm open for suggestions...

Just read the document out loud, and as alt text put in what you said
when you got to the image. (Often the image is merely backup material
for the text and is not necessary for understanding the material, in
which case alt="" is a sensible answer.)

> But it seems unnecessary to postulate another box that is the parent
> of the root box.

Indeed. In fact the root box is placed in an arbitrary position on the
infinite canvas, which, by virtue of being infinite, cannot be a box.

> The difference is in the "relatively positioned" elements: are they
> "positioned" or not?

Personally, I agree that the current definition is the best.

> Yes, [the ":expanded" and ":collapsed" pseudo-classes] should
> probably go to the Selectors module. But it is a pity to hold up the
> Selectors module, which is otherwise ready, because we haven't
> finished discussing how to deal with collapsing/expanding elements
> yet.

Agreed. Personally I think these pseudo-classes belong in the UI draft
and not the box model draft...

Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -> ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______

Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 16:27:39 UTC