- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:27:58 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: > On 18/08/2010 10:11, fantasai wrote: >> | Vertical margins collapse if they are adjoining, except: >> | * Margins of the root element's box do not collapse. >> | * If the top and bottom margins of an element with clearance are >> | adjoining, its margins collapse with the adjoining margins of >> | subsequent siblings but that resulting margin does not collapse >> | with the bottom margin of the parent block. > > The margins may not be mutually adjoining (indeed, frequently won't be > now that the concept is intransitive) yet they may still collapse. The > sentence needs reformulating in terms of collapsing. (Not easy to do > elegantly, unfortunately.) This doesn't make sense. Adjoining-ness *must* be a transitive relationship. If Fantasai's edits are introducing additional intransitive-ness rather than fixing the intransitive-ness that currently exists, that's a huge bug. (An intransitive definition of adjoining is simply nonsensical. The only result of that would be inconsistent casting back to a transitive definition.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:28:59 UTC