Re: [CSS21] Issues with inline formatting model (particularly 10.8)

Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 11:36:40AM -0700, fantasai wrote:
>> On 07/31/2010 08:50 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>>> Anton Prowse wrote:

>>> Issue 16:
>>>
>>> 10.8.1 says:
>>> # On a block-level, table-cell, table-caption or inline-block element
>>> # whose content is composed of inline-level elements, 'line-height'
>>> # specifies the minimal height of line boxes within the element. [...]
>>>
>>> # On an inline-level element, 'line-height' specifies the height that
>>> # is used in the calculation of the line box height (except for inline
>>> # replaced elements, where the height of the box is given by the
>>> # 'height' property).
>>>
>>> I don't follow the inline-block bit at all: does "whose content is
>>> composed of inline-level elements" qualify inline-block, or all the
>>> element types listed? Why is this case noteworthy? What if the content
>>> isn't composed like that? Also, shouldn't inline-table be mentioned
>>> here, or should we really not be highlighting inline-block and
>>> inline-table at all and instead talk about inline-level block containers
>>> (see [5])? See also [6; Issue 2].
>> This sentences is talking about block containers that contain inline-level
>> content. (See issue 120.) It doesn't apply to block containers that
>> contain only block-level content, because they do not have line boxes.
> 
> One change that's necessary here is that the existing text is wrong for the
> case of an element A whose children are all inline-level elements but one or
> more of them contains a block-level element B that specifies a smaller
> 'line-height': the existing text incorrectly says that A's 'line-height' is a
> minimum for the line boxes in B.
> 
> [At least, I assume that it's incorrect and that A's 'line-height' is
> irrelevant to the line boxes in B in this case, though I'm only guessing.]
> 
> The fix would be to talk about boxes instead of elements, and to insert
> the text "(after applying the anonymous block rules in section 9.2.1.1)".

I'm not sure the insertion is necessary, but you're right in your
observation that this section is yet another place where "elements"
should be "boxes" most of the time.

I know fantasai's got the element vs box issue in her sights ;-).  We
need to complete the great box cleanup (Issue #120; [5]) first though, 
in order to have the vocabulary necessary to reformulate all these 
sections in terms of boxes.


 > [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0383.html

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net

Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 18:30:19 UTC