- From: Ph. Wittenbergh <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 10:20:40 +0900
- To: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: Ingo Chao <i4chao@googlemail.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
On May 20, 2008, at 7:43 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > If your concern is that in this case the containing shrink-wrap box > should be wider, that seems valid; note that the width computation > for this shrink-wrap box is not defined in the spec either. I think that is the main concern here. How wide should the _auto- width_ wrapping floated box be in this case ? Should it be as wide as the box with 'overflow:hidden', or should the width of the wrapper include that of the floated inner-box ? Here is a slightly different test case. It differs from Ingo's testcase mainly by adding white space after the ':' in the 'overflow:hidden' string. The other boxes are there for the purpose of reference and comparison. <http://dev.l-c-n.com/_ingo/bfc/bfcnebenfloat2.html> Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 01:21:23 UTC