- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 10:31:31 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 04/09/2010 05:04, fantasai wrote: > On 08/11/2010 09:42 AM, Anton Prowse wrote: >> At a curious intersection point of two threads >> >> [1]: Empty floated element with a set width but height:0 >> [2]: Trivial editorial issues with 9.5 (Floats) >> >> we encounter the complementary question to Gérard Talbot's zero-height >> floats question. ... > > I believe this has been addressed as part of CSS2.1 Issue 185: > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-185 > > Let me know if this addresses the issue. I believe it does, since it defines "next to the float". With that change, the sentence # However, line boxes created next to the float are shortened to # make room for the margin box of the float. is coherent, and there is no longer any ambiguity about zero- or negative width floats; it's simply the position of the float's content-facing side margin that's relevant to whether a line box gets shortened. (Gecko is wrong when it ignores the second float in the first two test cases I originally posted.) Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 08:32:17 UTC