- From: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 00:53:25 +0100
- To: "CSS Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 3, 2008 12:30 AM, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net> wrote: > > I don't know what you mean. When the height is not specified, I still see > the bottom margin. the margins increase the height of the container. If you > mean that the same phenomenon occurs when overflowing in the vertical > instead of the horizontal, then sure, that is no surprise. > And by "no surprise", I mean that I am not surprised that the unwanted > behavior occurs when the conditions are rotated 90 degrees. I still consider > it undesirable. Yes I meant exactly that. When the height on the parent is specified the bottom margin of the child hasn't any effect (neither on child position, nor on parent's height) and it is not 'visible' by scrolling. The scrolling mechanism only allow to 'see' the content. In your example you see the only (three) margins that have an effect on the position of the child and on the height of the parent. It is not that the right margin is 'missing', it simply hasn't any effect (and its used value is probably just what satisfies the equality at 10.3.3, as we said at the beginning.) But I see what you consider 'desirable'. Now it can probably be obtained with an extra (shrink-to-fit) wrapper around the content, inside the scrolling box. -- Bruno Fassino http://www.brunildo.org/test
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 23:53:32 UTC