- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:10:59 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/28/2010 08:45 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2010-07-28 20:01 -0700, fantasai wrote: >> | Two margins are adjoining if and only if: >> | * no non-empty content, padding or border areas; line boxes; >> | or clearance separate them >> | * both belong to normal-flow block-level boxes in the same block >> | formatting context > > Strictly speaking, we don't define what block formatting context an > element is "in"; we only define that certain elements establish new > block formatting contexts. This means that technically, it's > ambiguous whether an element that establishes a new block formatting > context is in the BFC that it establishes. In general, I think it > makes more sense to say that it is (or, at the very least, that it's > certainly not associated with any *other* block formatting context). > However, this statement assumes that it is not. > > I think it is probably worth rewording to clarify this. Changed "in" to "that participate in". I don't think it makes sense for an element that establishes a new block formatting context to be considered as /in/ the BFC that it establishes, though it could reasonably be said to /contain/ that block formatting context. Certainly it does not "participate" in the block formatting context it establishes: it participates in its parent's block formatting context, if it participates in a block formatting context at all. >> | Note. Adjoining boxes may be generated by elements that are not >> | related as siblings or ancestors. > > "adjoining margins" rather than "adjoining boxes"? Yep. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2010 08:11:34 UTC