- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:00:46 +1000
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012, Anton Prowse wrote in one thread: > [Despite the fact that Appendix E is written in terms of the stacking > context and its descendants being elements not boxes, the proposal > relies on the term "block container" which is currently a box term > that's undefined for elements. It would be great if we could just > define "block container element" sensibly.] and in another thread: > Recently I hit upon yet another place in the spec where the context > is elements and where the spec needs to be updated to refer to block > containers: Appendix E. [1] The new text will be incongruous if we > don't define "block container element". The above two both contain something of an error in that although Appendix E uses the word "element", it's explicit that it uses the word in a special sense (see E.1, where it's defined to mean something quite a lot like "box"; and the phrase "For each box that is a child of that element" also suggests a very box-like understanding of what Appendix E means by "element"). Thus, it's wrong or at least misleading to describe appendix E as being about "elements and not boxes". Although there remain some issues as to exactly what Appendix E means by an "element" and its descendants, I think the above shows that the existing use of the word "element" is causing problems: in a reference document such as the CSS 2.1 spec, people expect to be able to understand the meaning of a paragraph (or a phrase such as "If the element is a block container", in the current case) without reading the whole chapter to see that the word "element" has a different meaning in this appendix to the rest of the spec. I suggest that it should at least use a different word or phrase ("render-element" ?), and wouldn't be surprised if simply "box" ended up being the right word. pjrm.
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 05:01:12 UTC