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

Re: [CSS 2.1] cases that do not pass in any browser

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 10:56:44 +1000
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <20100814005644.GA13811@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:25:30AM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 8/13/10 3:48 AM, Peter Moulder wrote:
> >If a user agent doesn't consider the float to be part of the first line,
> >then it's probably because of the following from section 5.12.1:
> >
> >   # The "first formatted line" of an element may occur inside a block-level
> >   # descendant in the same flow (i.e., a block-level descendant that is not
> >   # positioned and not a float)
> >
> >Presumably people are reading that as saying that the first formatted line of
> >an element can't occur inside a descendent that is a float;
> >which does seem like a reasonable guess as to the intent of that text.
> Peter, please reread what I wrote in the post that Tab was
> responding to, and which you conveniently quoted.  No one is
> claiming that the first formatted line is inside the float.  But the
> float inherits color from a span and that span is most certainly
> inside the first formatted line of the block.

I agree that your reading is a reasonable one, and it's the behaviour that I
would expect, but I can't find any normative text that actually declares
the "red" interpretation to be non-conforming.  Maybe the user agent is deliberately
wrapping just "the first formatted line", and taking this to exclude the float,
which does not inherit from a formatted line.

I suggest we change that section to actually specify the behaviour in general,
rather than rely on examples and expecting implementers to guess.

Same goes for almost every other normative chapter of CSS2.1, for that matter.

Sorry if I'm speaking too strongly, but trying to implement the current text of
CSS2.1 is really painful with all its "specification by example" and loosely
worded text, and I'm amazed that the current text is labelled a "candidate
recommendation", when so much of this "specification" is not specified and
relies on implementers guessing as to the intended behaviour.

Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 00:57:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:49 UTC