- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 17:32:29 -0700
- To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 08/04/2010 07:33 AM, Bert Bos wrote: > On Wednesday 21 July 2010 09:16:54 fantasai wrote: >> CSS2.1 Issue 120 >> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-120 > > The replacements all seem correct, except for these three: > ... > The old text defined "block-level" (viz., as anything with a 'display' > of 'block', 'list-item', 'table', or, under certain > circumstances, 'run-in'), but the new text doesn't seem to > define "block-level" at all. The paragraph you have in mind remains untouched in this proposal. :) It's before the text I said to replace. > "Atomic inline box" seems unnecessary. We decided on the telecon to keep this definition in place. I think it will particularly be useful as we add new display models in CSS3. >> Section 9.9.1 Specifying the stack level: the 'z-index' property >> >> Replace >> >> # The contents of inline blocks and inline tables are stacked as >> >> with >> >> | The contents of atomic inlines such as inline blocks and inline >> | tables are stacked as > > I think that is not an improvement, see above. > > B.t.w., the latest proposed new text for this sentence under issue 60 > includes floats and certain positioned elements as well, as follows: > > Positioned elements with 'z-index: auto' (in layer 6), floats > (layer 4), inline blocks (layer 5), and inline tables > (layer 5), are painted as > > and that copies terms from the proposed new text for the preceding list. > E.g., item 5: > > 5. the in-flow, inline-level, non-positioned descendants, including > inline tables and inline blocks. Okay. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 15:58:50 UTC