- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:24:27 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
On 08/08/2012 12:51, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: >> Seems to me that it would be better to explicitly say how >> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details is >> modified. A containing block is a rectangle, not a box or element or >> whatever the term "the object" is supposed to refer to. > > This is annoying, because CSS 2.1 is frozen and provides no hooks for > us. Yes, the section on containing blocks is hard to work with in that regard. > I don't suppose there's a CSS 3 spec where we could update the > definition of containing blocks so that it explicitly allows other > specs to modify the definition? Not one that's likely to be mature enough when you need it, no, unfortunately. CSS3-box will contain an improved containing block treatment. > The way we're doing things now is > more or less like COMEFROM, where different CSS specs are expected to > arbitrarily modify others with no clear interfaces, so that > interactions are completely undefined if two different specs happen to > modify the same behavior independently. (By contrast, stacking > context creation is explicitly extensible, for instance.) Agreed. Painting layer insertion suffers from the same problem. I've pondered the idea of having a Module Interactions draft which keeps a track of all this, and gets updated frequently. > But I guess that's a bigger issue. To fix this specific case, I filed > a bug, with proposed resolution: > > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18500 The proposal therein seems reasonable, although personally I had to parse the "is treated the same as" bit a couple of times to understand the meaning that you intend. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 07:24:58 UTC