- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:09:11 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 08/14/2010 11:02 PM, Anton Prowse wrote: > > > * The amount necessary to place the top border edge of the block > > even with the previously computed hypothetical position of the top > > border edge of the element. (Informative Note: This is necessary to > > handle the case where the float moves due to the element's top > > margin no longer collapsing with previous margins.) > > (This is assuming – reasonably, I think – that that's what the equation > in Calculation 2 really is trying to say.) It also probably wants to > say "border edge", not "previously computed hypothetical position of > border edge"; more on this in my upcoming post and below. > > As to why I like this approach: the problem with having an equation > rather than a statement of intended result is that you then have to > worry about whether the equation is correct (which is precisely what got > us into this mess in the first place).... And seeing as the spec > doesn't require us to know the actual clearance value at any point, I > don't see any need to fuss about with equations at all. We do know, based on the CSSWG's archives, that the rewording above is the original intent of Calculation 2. I had in fact suggested replacing Ian's rather convoluted calculation with the following at that time: | 2. The amount necessary to place the border edge of the block | at its hypothetical position. The intent is exactly to ensure that the clearing element does not move upwards as a result of clearing. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 23:09:47 UTC