- From: <staffan.mahlen@comhem.se>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:59:48 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, The new descriptions in the lastest WD on those things helped me a lot, good work. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/visuren.html#q15 The new first paragraph in block formatting context is good and makes me think i understand the questions i had on floats earlier. However, i think an example or two would be helpful to more clearly show for instance how an element that generates a new block formatting context affects its containing blocks size when the containing block also generates a new block formatting context (is this described somewhere else? I failed to find it if so). I also think some kind of more explicit pointer to this effect should be supplied in the calculating widths/heights sections (or is the effect seen more as an implicit min-width/min-height?). Something i dont understand is why non-initial overflow needs to generate a new block formatting context? http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/visuren.html#floats The new paragraph on how the margin box of a block that generates a new block formatting context interacts with floats in the same block context is helpful, but i think perhaps the effect of a float nested inside an element wich generates a new block formatting context along with more examples would help even further (eg a float in a table cell). The way things in the draft are currently written the example under the paragraph probably belongs to the previous paragraph, which could be a bit confusing. The paragraph is a little vague on how to handle the conflict between a float and another block that generates a new block formatting context when they are in the same block formatting context. Why not require that the box is cleared? When is it desirable to position it adjacent, creating a kind of a "pseudo-float"? As an editorial comment i noticed that the phrase "block formatting context" was only occationally linked to its defintion, in case this is not intentional. /Staffan
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 05:59:44 UTC