W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: [CSS21] Another ambiguity in the definition of "containing block"

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:14:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4ABFD5D0.1030205@mit.edu>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 9/27/09 4:45 PM, Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> Even if it used the anonymous box (which includes "Text" and "More
> text"), the float should have been half the height of that box

No, it should have had a computed height of 50% of the computed height 
of that box.  The computed height of the anonymous box is auto, and 
percentages of auto compute to auto.

> In any case, imo the interpretation "the box generated by the nearest
> block-level ancestor element" is the correct one

There are multiple boxes generated here, so "the box" is nonsensical.

> the anonymous one is generated by its content.

I believe in CSS each box is generated by a specific element.  But I 
could be wrong; Bert's pointed out cases where I was wrong about box 
generation before.  I wish it were defined somewhere outside Bert's 
brain.  ;)

>> I still think that all of 10.1 is ambiguous in any but the most trivial
>> cases that fall under item 2; this is just another example....
> Well, replacing "ancestor" with "ancestor's" may solve it, I think.

Not really, no.

Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 21:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:39 UTC