- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:25:53 +0200
- 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)? Likewise: >> (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" with "table boxes" <link to 17.4> address your concern? Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 14:26:26 UTC