- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:21:26 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: > On 10/10/2012 00:05, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> There's an unfortunate tendency to use the term "containing block" to >> refer interchangeably to "the rectangle defined as the containing block" >> (which is not itself a block in any way; it's just a rectangle) and "the >> element which was used when defining the containing block" (assuming >> there was one at all; see initial containing block) and maybe a few >> other things. >> >> As defined, right now, the containing block is a rectangle. The other >> uses are just confused, to a greater or lesser extent. > > > Yup. Various people have raised these confused uses in CSS21 over the years. > When I last looked through (in response to a detailed post by Peter Moulder, > IIRC) I got the distinct impression that the containing block used to refer > to a real block (box) in times gone by... but then, I imagine, the > definition got repeatedly tweaked to account for eg abspos, and suddenly the > containing block became a mere rectangle and various bits of existing spec > text became out-of-kilter (not to mention that the term itself became > seriously misleading). > > No post-CSS21 spec should be using the term to mean anything other than a > rectangle, though (modulo the pending issue about containing blocks > established by a principal inline box that's split across multiple lines). We've got two options for rewording in the spec now, hidden behind a comment below the existing text. fantasai will work on them a bit more to sanity-check, and then we'll bring them up here to see what we want to do. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 00:22:14 UTC