- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:12:30 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 4/21/14, 4:24 PM, Robert Hogan wrote: > "The following algorithm describes how the two properties influence the > used value of the 'height' property: The basic problem is that min/max-height was pretty underspecified for a while. It talks about redoing layout with a different value for the height, but didn't use to say whether that's a new computed value, used value, or something else. In practice, implementations interpret it inconsistently, sometimes even within an implementation. The spec attempted to clarify that it's the used value that changed, but it's possible that those updates were inconsistently applied, because in addition to the note you quote there is this note in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/box.html#collapsing-margins : The bottom margin of an in-flow block box with a 'height' of 'auto' and a 'min-height' of zero collapses with its last in-flow block-level child's bottom margin if the box has no bottom padding and no bottom border and the child's bottom margin does not collapse with a top margin that has clearance. The "'min-height' of zero" stipulation there is only necessary if min-height on the parent can in fact affect margin collapsing behavior. But the actual normative rules only talk about "bottom margin of a last in-flow child and bottom margin of its parent if the parent has 'auto' computed height". So my best guess is that either someone forget to change the normative text when adding both this note and the note in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#min-max-heights or the note here is wrong. It's hard to tell which is the case without some archeology. :( > So can the behaviour be improved or should it remain as it is? Am I > right in thinking the rendering in WebKit/IE/Presto is correct per the spec? It seems correct per the current normative text of the spec. Whether the current normative text of the spec reflects what the working group was _trying_ to have the spec say in this case is not clear to me. :( -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2014 06:13:00 UTC