- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:41:41 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:36 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 08/19/2010 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> 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.) > > I suggest you read the edits and dbaron's email before making a > judgement here. Ah, is that all that's being talked about? Yeah, describing it in terms of an intransitive relationship seems to make it easier, but it all turns into something indistinguishable from a transitive relationship if done correctly. Never mind, then. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:54:37 UTC