Re: BAD definitions

Tapio Markula (by way of Bert Bos ) wrote:
> "Replaced element
> An element for which the CSS formatter knows only the intrinsic
>  dimensions."
> This definition covers oncy CERTAIN kinds of replaced elements.
> BUT the definition doesn't cover all possible type of replaced
>  elements. <q cite=""></q> is a replaced element,

No, it's not. The usage is <q cite="source.url">Quotation</q>.

> A fictional element 'include', which would be empty (<include
> href="" />) has NOT intrinsic dimension, because the
> content is just an arbitrary string, which can be brokened randomly.
> The width and height are NOT defined by the element itself, but they
> are instead imposed by the surroundings.
 > How CSS2.1 could improve to cover elements like <include />, which task
 > is to embed arbitrary string to document and the expected behavior
 > type is wrap like an ordinary phrase (for example 'strong') in a line?

Such a fictional element should not exist because we have general
entities to handle such inclusions, and these are processed before
the document representation ever gets to the CSS renderer.

Recommended Reading:
The section entitled "Entities" (pp. 10-12) in Chapter 1 of
Walsh, Norman and Leonard Muellner. /DocBook: The Definitive Guide/.
Cambridge: O'Reilly, 1999.
Also available online -

> How for example <block href=""></block>
> should be rendered?

As a link of course. href == hypertext reference :)


Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:02:35 UTC