W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css2.1] Issue 161 revised proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:36:16 -0700
Message-ID: <w2pdd0fbad1004141736m68a640aameeca9b2fc7e3cfea@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is clearer. But since there may not be any positioned ancestor, it
> would be better to say "containing block" instead of "nearest positioned
> ancestor".

Right, "containing block" is the term I'm looking for.  So the
proposed text would be:

"A descendant box is positioned absolutely, partly outside the box.
Such boxes are not always clipped by the overflow property on their
ancestors; specifically, they are not clipped by the overflow of any
ancestor between themselves and their containing block."

> Also, in the bullet right before that one, "i.e." should be changed to
> "e.g.", or else "max-height" should be mentioned too.

That's a different issue.  ^_^

Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 00:37:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:45 UTC