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

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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 23:22:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF74DD9.1080503@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/21/10 7:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> In that case, what's your mental model of the box tree in this case:
>>   <div style="display: table">
>>     <div style="display: table-cell"/>
>>     <div style="position: absolute"/>
>>     <div style="display: table-row"/>
>>   </div>
>> What are the siblings of the absolutely positioned box?  What is its parent?
>>   What are the siblings' parents?  Why does any of that make any sense?
> Excellent question.  To the spec!  (Or rather, the proposed spec text
> from fantasai.)
> By rule 2.1, the markup is repaired by wrapping the first div, and
> only the first div, in an anonymous table row.

Hmmm.... yeah, ok.  That would be a bug in fantasai's spec, then.

> (In case it is not clear, the<anon>  doesn't wrap the abspos because
> the definition of "consecutive siblings" given in the proposed spec
> text specifically ignores abspos elements.)

This wasn't a problem with my original spec proposal, since it 
explicitly inserted an in-flow placeholder for the position:absolute 
before doing anything else.

> The abspos box's siblings are the anonymous table-row and the third
> div.  Its parent is the outer div.  The parents of the other siblings
> should be obvious from the pretend-tree I illustrated.


> We then follow my proposed guidelines.  The first rule that matches is
> the third one, "following table row", so the auto position is the top
> left corner of the border box of the third div (argh, copypaste type
> in my previous email!).

That seems buggy to me; if there were another cell after the abspos, 
your rules would put it at top left of that cell.  Leaving off that cell 
shouldn't cause it to move down to the next row in any sane definition 
of auto offsets.  But again, this is based on what looks like a bug in 
fantasai's spec to me.

> This is a complex enough case that I'm not too worried about the
> answer being intuitive, merely precisely specified.  I don't think the
> answer is crazy, though; it's one of a few "reasonable" positions.

I don't think it's particularly reasonable, sorry.

Received on Saturday, 22 May 2010 03:22:36 UTC

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