- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:00:37 +0000
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:30 AM Anton Prowse wrote: > > > Yes... but oddly it's not /that/ position that's used. It's a different position, > this time defined as where it would be (relative to the > canvas) if the clearing element really did have a non-zero *top* border. > > Why? > ==== > > Because there's an error in the spec! Stay tuned for the follow-up, in which > we demonstrate precisely why this part of the spec is just silly... Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG resolved not to make changes to the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. We have determine that the spec is not incorrect based on the following logic from this email[2]. Additional changes have been made to the relevant test cases so the cases match the specification. Please respond before 14 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution. [1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Dec/0474.html
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 23:01:13 UTC