- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:36:17 -0400
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 4/2/11 1:14 AM, fantasai wrote: > Right, but the rectangle is defined by referencing a box. Sort of. In some of the cases. But not in others. >> I think we all know what we mean here, but we're not actually putting >> it into the spec. If I had to implement the current text >> without the various background I know, I'd at best get it wrong and at >> worst be very very confused and then get it even more >> wrong. > > How else would you interpret that sentence in 9.2.1.1? That depends on how confused I got. I'm having a pretty hard time doing the thought experiment, given what I do happen to know about our intentions. > I'd probably just tack on > > | For the purpose of resolving percentage values (only), the containing > | block is determined while ignoring _anonymous block boxes_[9.2.1.1]. > > instead of splitting the item, but that should amount to the same thing, > yes? If you have enough context, I suppose. I think my formulation leads to a much more readable spec, personally. Do we have a word count limit? ;) -Boris
Received on Saturday, 2 April 2011 05:36:51 UTC