- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:21:15 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Paul Duffin <pduffin@volantis.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 6/10/10 12:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> Just from the spec, though, this area is underdefined. I *suspect* >> that ::outside's containing block is its superior's containing block, >> and that it can (when appropriate) be the containing block for its >> superior, exactly as if you'd simply wrapped the superior in a<div>. > > Note that the first clause of that last sentence is contradicts the last > one, if one does something like "foo::outside { position: absolute; }" say > when foo itself is not positioned. > > The last clause is the one that would make the most sense from an authoring > perspective. Yeah, improper generalization. Just saying "its containing block is exactly the containing block of an identically-styled <div> wrapping the superior" is likely correct. >> (Personally, I suspect an ::inside pseudo would work better. It would >> wrap the superior's children, rather than wrapping the superior >> itself.) > > Offhand, that seems like it would be easier to implement, but doesn't work > well for replaced elements, whereas ::outside doesn't care what it's > wrapping. True. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 16:22:15 UTC