- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:36:26 +0100
- To: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Friday 2007-10-19 22:22 +0200, Bruno Fassino wrote: > > As David pointed out, my initial proposal was wrong. What about simply change: > > "min-height less than the element's used height" > > with: > > "min-height not affecting the element's used height" ? > > This will allow margins collapsing in cases when the used height, > _before_ taking min-height into account, is exactly equal to > min-height. > Such cases are probably not much relevant. Apparently a trivial > example is a height:auto box containing an empty (or height:0) box. > The first box has used height 0, equal to its min-width=0. I think we > want to allow (bottom) margins collapsing here. I think what we want to do is replace: # The bottom margin of an in-flow block-level element with a # 'height' of 'auto' and 'min-height' less than the element's used # height and 'max-height' greater than the element's used height # is adjoining to its last in-flow block-level child's bottom # margin if the element has no bottom padding or border. with: # The bottom margin of an in-flow block-level element is adjoining # to its last in-flow block-level child's bottom margin when: # * the element's specified 'height' is 'auto', # * the element's computed height is the same as it would have # been if the specified value of 'min-height' were '0' and the # specified value of 'max-height' were 'none', and # * the element has no bottom padding or border. This fixes the issue in this thread using the hypothetical, and also fixes the issue (pointed out recently, I think) that the text should say something about blocks where the height conditions do not match. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 10:37:04 UTC