Re: comments on WD-css3-box-20010726

Bert Bos wrote:

> Bjoern Hoehrmann writes:

> > I suggest to adopt the CSS Level 2 definition, e.g. "with a 
> > 'position' other than 'static'". The same goes for the following 
> > definitions.
> The difference is in the "relatively positioned" elements: are they
> "positioned" or not? It seemed to me that things are easier to explain
> if relatively positioned elements are treated as normal flow elements
> and not lumped together with absolute and fixed positioned elements.
> For example, a relatively positioned floating element: is that OK or
> not? I think it is, and so it is easier to say that 'float' applies to
> "all elements except positioned elements," because that then
> automatically includes relatively positioned elements.

1.  It made sense that a relatively positioned element was classed as
'positioned' (relative to itself, as opposed to some absolute reference)
since it shares some of the features of absolutely positioned elements -
e.g. z-index, because it can lead to overlapping of elements.

Why not just say what one means in this instance, which is that 'float'
applies only to elements in normal flow. (Of course, one would explain
that it then takes that element out of normal flow ...)

2.  Another feature that abs pos & rel pos elements shared was that they
established containing blocks for absolutely positioned descendents.

However, relatively positioned elements are excluded from the definition
of a 'flow root'. Is this intended?

Val Sharp - Edinburgh

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 21:18:39 UTC