- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:34:01 -0800
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Cc: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
What it the purpose of this restriction? If authors wants that behavior, they can just set 'position:relative' on the first block. Why must it be prescribed as a containing block? On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:11 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: > Hi Anton, all, > > What about the following wording instead: > > ==== > The edges of the first region in a region chain associated with a named flow establish > the rectangle that is the > <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#containing-block-details">containing block</a> > used for absolutely positioned elements in the name named flow which do not have an > ancestor with a 'position' of 'absolute', 'relative' or 'fixed' (see [[!CSS21]]) . That first region rectangle > is used as the containing block instead of the initial containing block. > ==== > > See: http://bit.ly/zFWXLc > > Vincent > > On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Anton Prowse wrote: > >> From another thread entitled "[css3-regions] regions forming stacking >> contexts" [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0146.html]: >> >> On 03/02/2012 08:07, Vincent Hardy wrote: >> >>> Regarding the initial containing block, I am not sure what is >>> missing from the spec. can you clarify? Section 4.1 is explicit: >>> >>> "The edges of the first region in a region chain associated with a >>> named flow establish the rectangle that is the initial containing >>> block of the named flow." >> >> I'm assuming that the idea is to override the CSS21 term "initial >> containing block", for content inside of regions. Your term is actually >> different though: "initial containing block of a named flow". >> >> In examples such as the following from CSS21 10.1: >> >> # If the element has 'position: absolute', [and the containing block >> # isn't established by other means], the containing block is the >> # initial containing block. >> >> it is not at all clear that your new term overrides the established >> term. If you want it to do so then you'll need to be more explicit in >> the regions spec. >> >> Cheers, >> Anton Prowse >> http://dev.moonhenge.net > >
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 17:38:19 UTC