W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-04-21

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 08:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilE_zefxnkGkCOr4YQhyK--nWOUEYs4_ZvH50sJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 5/17/10 6:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> Just to make sure, you're talking about this, right?:
>> <!DOCTYPE html>
>> <body>
>>   <span style="display: table-cell">a</span>
>>   <span style="float: left"></span>
>>   <span style="display: table-cell">b</span>
>> </body>
>> In this case, step 2 of fantasai's revised algorithm won't do anything
>> special with the float
> Sure; that's what matches UA behavior.  But why aren't you out to redefine
> that like you are other parts of the behavior?  ;)

Because that behavior makes sense!  ^_^  Floats aren't really
out-of-flow in the global definition of "flow"; they just have special
behavior in normal flow specifically.  Making the term "out of flow"
apply to floats was a bad optimization.

>> (Also, it might be debatable whether or not 3.1 would actually respond
>> to the float.  Defining floats as "out-of-flow" is the problem here -
>> as written, step 3.1 could be interpreted as wrapping all three
>> <span>s in a table-row, even though the float is *still* not either a
>> table-cell or wrapped in one.  It could also be interpreted as saying
>> to wrap the two table-cells in a table-row, but not the float, which
>> doesn't make any sense in terms of the box tree.)
> There are all sorts of things that make no sense in terms of the "box tree"
> that CSS calls for (and Bert keeps insisting it's not a tree, note).

Every implementor in the world, in addition to most of our specs,
implicitly or explicitly recognizes the idea of a box tree.  Fighting
it is a lost cause.  ^_^

>>> Yes, yes you do....  Either that or make it very clear what you actually
>>> mean.
>> Sure.  Do you have a preference on which I should do?  I can go either
>> way.
> Not terribly as long as it's well-defined.  Note that I'm still not at all
> convinced this change is even desirable, so I'm probably not the best person
> to ask to refine its detailed wording; I don't actually care enough so far.

All right then, I'll see which is easier to define.

Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 15:50:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:46 UTC