- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:59:46 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On 23/11/2011 16:44, Florian Rivoal wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:11:36 +0100, Rossen Atanassov > <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Why not option C. >> Margin collapsing only makes sense on a boundary between two blocks >> elements belonging to the same normal flow. > > Two consecutive spanners are in the same normal flow with respect to > each other. The combined group of consecutive spanners isn't in normal > flow with regards to the rest of the page, so not having margin > collapsing between spanners and non spanning content is reasonable, but > that's not what we are discussing. Hang on, that's only the case in Option A where there is an anonymous BFC wrapper placed around the spanners. In other cases the spanner is in the same flow as non-spanner content and can theoretically collapse with it. However, I think I'm seeing one of Rossen's concerns more clearly now: it seems to be undefined how spanners interact with the columns whose breakage they cause. Margin collapsing merely exacerbates the problem, so I can see why we might want to run away from Option C. At least the other two options sidestep the problem by providing a fixed barrier between the spanners and their surrounding content. I guess this puts me in favour of Option A again. I think that the difficulty we're having is just a symptom of a problem at a deeper layer; the flow of content into columns and the behaviour of content at either side of column boundaries is not sufficiently defined. I don't think we can hope to finalize spanners until that's cleared up. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 28 November 2011 16:00:37 UTC