- From: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
- Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 17:55:42 -0700
- To: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/19/13 6:03 AM, "Marat Tanalin" <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: >19.10.2013, 06:54, "Bruno Racineux" <bruno@hexanet.net>: >> On 10/18/13 7:13 PM, "Marat Tanalin" <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote: >> Or show a valid use case. > >I've already provided the case. Please read more carefully before you >reply. I was referring to a full case with an html context. But fine, floated children boxes can be smaller in height than that of it container's wanted min-height, that's a conceivable practical case indeed. >> Should the presence of floats within your container be conditional. > >You English is somewhat tricky to parse. I meant that if your container is defined as per your example, but it does not contain any floated elements, min-height: contain-floats; shall be in this case invalidated, with the min-height: 200px; taking precedence. You are probably right though, considering what Tab said. I suppose I fell into this assumption due to their reasoning for doing the specs that way in the first place. It sounds like a mistake. Sorry for initially failing to see it.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 00:56:13 UTC