- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:59:35 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
On 08/03/2010 04:43 PM, Peter Moulder wrote: > (Bert, I've cc'd you as an editor just for process' sake for the last > paragraph of this message.) > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 08:28:16PM +0200, Anton Prowse wrote: >> Peter Moulder wrote: > >>> The fix would be to talk about boxes instead of elements, and [...] >> >> [...] 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. > > Thanks for pointing that out. I've been wondering for the last twelve hours > what I've missed that fantasai should write > > Table-caption elements are explicitly defined to be block-level elements > in 17.4, so this is already unambiguous. > > when I don't see any such explicit statement. As Anton points out, this is because I'm mixing up boxes and elements. The relevant statement is here: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#model # The caption boxes are block-level boxes that retain their own content, # padding, margin, and border areas, and are rendered as normal blocks # inside the anonymous box. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 07:00:17 UTC