W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [CSS21] zindex.html "element" terminology

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:27:21 +0200
Message-ID: <5005E6C9.8010200@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 16/07/2012 17:12, Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012, Anton Prowse wrote:

>> ...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,
>> ...
>> 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.
> I agree that the first sentence of this description of ‘element’ reads like a
> strict definition that excludes non-anonymous boxes.  I too would say that
> marker boxes aren't anonymous (as they have an associated element: "anonymous
> box" is never formally defined in CSS 2.1, but § gives what looks like
> the criterion), and I too had noticed the apparent conflict between first and
> third sentences (in the sense that the first sentence seems to defines
> ‘element’ as excluding marker boxes while the third sentence seems to make
> clear that marker boxes were intended to be included as "elements"). [...]
> If we take the E.1 definition to be informal (or in error), and take that
> third sentence to imply that ‘element’ does include non-anonymous boxes,
> then the special treatment does help the cases you're looking at.

Given that we're not going to fix the box vs element issue in CSS21, I 
think the cleanest fix here is to explicitly call out, in the special 
definition of element in E.1, that boxes generated additionally to the 
principal box of an element count as elements too.  This would cover the 
table box of a table element, and the marker box of a list item.

I'll factor that into a revised proposal for the bug in question.

Anton Prowse
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 22:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC