- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:55:46 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:36:15 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > Reading 10.6.6 > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/visudet.html#q22 and given > > > that 'overflow' > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/visufx.html#overflow acts > > > like 'auto' when applied to the root element does > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-CSS21-20040225/visudet.html#root-height > > > apply to the root element? > > > > No. The spec is non-ambiguous. The 'overflow' propagation does not affect > > the computed value. > > And what if 'overflow' is set on the root element (to 'auto')? The spec is unambiguous. It says exactly what should happen to determine 'height', in terms of the computed value of 'overflow', and the computed value of 'overflow' is 'auto' in that case. (This contradicts what dbaron said, which may have been the _intent_ of the specification, but is certainly not what the specification says.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2006 16:55:54 UTC