- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:27:21 +0100
- To: "Garrett Smith" <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:09:08 +0100, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com> wrote: > <!DOCTYPE html> > quirks mode. > > Where are the tests in CSS1Compat mode? That DOCTYPE does not trigger quirks mode. > What's needed is an automated test. I've already gotten started on > one, but I want to host it not on my site, but somewhere with a > repository so tests can be CRUD'd by multiple users. Maybe start a Google code project? >> Yes, this specification tries to find a middle ground. > > As a result, it is broken/useless. I think I disagree. There may be some areas that are in need of clarification (and I've made some edits earlier to that effect), but other parts are already being used by implementors. >> I'm not sure what >> you mean with contradicting CSS 2.1. Where does that happen? > > The part that contradicts CSS2.1 the CSSOM spec says: > "If any of the following holds true return null and stop this algorithm: > ... > " A is the HTML body element." > > CSS2.1, 10.1 Definition of "containing block" > "... if the element's position is 'relative' or 'static', the > containing block is formed by the content edge of the nearest > block-level, table cell or inline-block ancestor box." > > It is contradictory because: > A positioned element forms an offsetParent. If body has position > static, it is not a positioned element. How can BODY be an > offsetParent? I don't see why offsetParent needs to be the containing block. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2008 02:22:26 UTC