- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:25:07 +0100
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On 02/03/2011 20:23, Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > There are already precedents with anonymous blocks - in text and in > tables. They are actually "blocks" in 2.1, which is neither boxes nor > elements (nor is it defined what's a block, is it?) 'Block' is a well-defined term in the latest WD for CSS21, and it refers to boxes. 9.2.1 says # The three terms "block-level box," "block container box," and # "block box" are sometimes abbreviated as "block" where unambiguous. Of course, I don't doubt for a moment that "block" is liberally used in places where it /is/ ambiguous or describes elements instead of boxes ;-) > I guess it is fine with me if for the purposes of the spec we mention > "box tree" if it helps to get clear definitions but it doesn't really > need to exist in implementation... If analogy with anonymous blocks > in text is any good, those definitely don’t need to be implemented > while being fully compliant with spec behavior. I've always been rather fascinated by this idea. Can an implementation claim to be compliant if it produces the same rendering in all cases as if it did implement these "invisible" abstractions, even if it actually doesn't implement them? I think this should be made clear in the spec. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 21:25:49 UTC