W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: A dedicated property to clear descendant floats (was: Proposal for "overflow:clip" for stronger painting isolation)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:44:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBCk9Wd=fXy8rhbN11BdQWKv=hB5ebb_oB=rTZfnJmpYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net>
Cc: Marat Tanalin <mtanalin@yandex.ru>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Bruno Racineux <bruno@hexanet.net> wrote:
> 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.

No problem, the cascade isn't initially obvious, and a lot of people
get tripped up by it when they first start thinking about features
that would interact with it.

Invalidation can only happen at the syntax level, not based on any
information in the document.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 01:45:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC