- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:35:25 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
On Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:48 PM Bert Bos wrote: > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Boris Zbarsky raised an issue about the exact rendering of 'display: > run-in'. That issue has several aspects: > > 4) I said above that 10.1 defines a behavior, but Boris thinks it is > actually ambiguous. It uses the phrase "ancestor box," which I take to > mean the "ancestor's box" but Boris thinks it can mean the box that is > an ancestor in the "formatting structure." (Chapter 2 says that the > structure of the "formatting structure" is not defined and that it need > not be a tree, but if you believe that it *is* a tree, you can easily > read "parent box" and "ancestor box" as being distinct from "parent's > box" and "ancestor's box.") > > STATUS: It's not yet clear how serious this ambiguity is. There are no > proposals for removing it. > > SUGGESTED ACTION: Decide if we want to review the occurrences > of "ancestor box" and similar terms and suggest rewrites. > Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG resolved not to make these changes to the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. We will be reevaluating this issue for errata and future versions of CSS. Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution. [1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:35:59 UTC