Re: Issue 158 proposed text

On 06/03/2010 04:51 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> This is meant to resolve issue 158:
> In this issue, Anton Prowse points out that the phrasing in section
> 9.5.2 is confusing.  Specifically, the phrase "these margins" is used
> to refer to margins mentioned two paragraphs previous, when there is
> at least one other margin mentioned between those two points.  This is
> an attempted rewrite of this section to resolve the ambiguity and make
> the entire clearance section clearer.
> Delete the text in 9.5.2 from "Computing the clearance on an
> element..." to the end of the note after the bulleted list.  Replace
> it with this text:

Given the issue is just about clarifying some antecedents in point 2,
I would suggest a less drastic change. You want to make sure you don't
change behavior in

I'd suggest replacing point 2

   # The amount necessary to make the sum of the following equal to the
   # distance to which these margins collapsed when the hypothetical
   # position was calculated:
   #    * the margins collapsing above the clearance
   #    * the clearance itself
   #    * if the block's own margins collapse together: the block's top margin
   #    * if the block's own margins do not collapse together: the margins
   #      collapsing below the clearance


   | The amount necessary to place the element's top border edge at its
   | hypothetical position.

which I believe was the intent of the calculations specified in 2.


Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 01:27:42 UTC