W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [css21][css3-box] please define "block container element"

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:25:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4F79B6F1.7070804@moonhenge.net>
To: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
CC: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
On 02/04/2012 15:55, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 30/03/2012 23:08, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
>> But I'll note that when people try to figure out whether 'overflow'
>> applies to 'table'/'inline-table', like my friend and I who raised the
>> original 'overflow' issue, the first thing they do will be 1) look at
>> the "Applies to" line 2) find the definition of "block container" and
>> soon get into this mess.
>> In any case, my proposal to the 'overflow' issue would be

> Is it not good enough (modulo the acknowledged impreciseness of element
> vs box) to simply say that overflow applies to "block containers and
> table boxes"?

And would it help if "table boxes", in my proposal above, were 
explicitly linked to 17.4 (to reinforce that it is a technical term 
whose meaning should not merely be guessed at)?


>> (I think it's probably no longer useful to criticize this text, but can
>> we link "table box" to 17.4 Tables in the visual formatting model in the
>> errata so that a CSS 2.1 newbie like me won't confuse "table box" with
>> "the thing generated by a 'table'"?)
> Which instance? (Chapter 9 already contains several links to Chapter 17
> or mentions of it.)

I think you might have been referring to 9.2.1:

   # Except for table boxes, which are described in a later chapter,
   # and replaced elements, a block-level box is also a block container
   # box. [...]

Would replacing

"table boxes, which are described in a later chapter"


"table boxes" <link to 17.4>

address your concern?

Anton Prowse
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 14:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:13 UTC