- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:11:44 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 16/07/2012 08:39, Anton Prowse wrote: > On 16/07/2012 07:00, Peter Moulder wrote: >> 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". > > D'oh! Thanks for pointing that out. I was aware of that in the > past, but I certainly had forgotten that when working on Appendix E > the other day. ...although that special treatment doesn't actually help in any of the cases that I'm currently handling, because the only thing it does is to include /anonymous/ boxes under the umbrella of the word "element". The boxes that I'm concerned about are never anonymous, because they are the principal boxes of real elements and pseudo-elements, plus the table boxes of table or inline-table elements (which are not anonymous despite not being principal). Aside: in fact, I would argue that the marker box of a list item isn't anonymous either, so the example given in E.1 to illustrate the redefining of "element" isn't relevant. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 07:12:18 UTC