- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 22:53:52 +0100
- To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Etan Wexler wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote regarding CSS2: >> But the root element establishes a containing block simply by >> virtue of being the root element. Section 10.1 is quit clear on >> this. I propose we strike the conflicting section in chapter 9. > > I would agree that CSS2 section 10.1 is clear except that my > understanding of it differs from yours. Section 10.1 reads: > > The containing block (called the initial containing block) in > which the root element lives is chosen by the user agent. > > That passage indicates that [...] there is no requirement that the > root element's boxes establish the containing block. "the" containing block? I said _a_ containing block. From 10.1: # 2. For other elements, unless the element is absolutely positioned, # the containing block is formed by the content edge of the nearest # block-level ancestor box. ...and so on. The root element isn't special, except you have to know where to put it. That is, you need to know its containing block. > Surely a user agent conforming to that passage could base the > initial containing block on the root element's boxes rather than > fitting the root element's boxes into a previously chosen initial > containing block. There is no practical difference. Using the concepts as described in 10.1 (root element in the initial containing block) is conceptually simpler to describe. > Section 9.1.2 reads: > > The root of the document tree generates a box that serves as the > initial containing block for subsequent layout. > > Did you mean to strike the passage in section 10.1? That would seem > more in the vein of your previous comments. Nope. -- Ian Hickson ``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Sunday, 19 May 2002 17:53:57 UTC