W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [cssom-view][css-break] getBoundingClientRect and getClientRects on fragmentation

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2015 20:10:15 -0500
To: robert@ocallahan.org, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Message-ID: <5660E7F7.8070402@inkedblade.net>
On 12/30/2013 07:39 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>
> OK, I think one source of confusion is the word "bounding",
> which simply shouldn't be there.
>
> Another source of confusion is that the CSS3 Fragmentation
> spec does not explicitly say that each fragment is (or has) a
> border-box. It talks about a single box being broken into
> multiple fragments (which doesn't make much sense to me since
> such a "box" is no longer rectangular.) On the other hand,
> it references CSS 2.1 for fragmentation of inline elements,
> which talks about inline boxes being split into multiple
> boxes. We need to clear up this confusion in the fragments
> spec; I'll start another thread for that.

I've updated the definition for "fragment" to say:
   # Each fragment has its own share of the box’s border,
   # padding, and margin, and therefore has its own
   # padding area, border area, and margin area.
   # (See box-decoration-break, which controls how these
   # are affected by fragmentation.)
http://drafts.csswg.org/css-break/#box-fragment

Let me know if this is clear enough, or if you have further
suggestions for improvement.

> Anyway I guess it would be clearer for getClientRects to
> explicitly say that it returns one rectangle for each fragment
> associated with the element. That was certainly always the
> intent, and is what browsers have already implemented for
> inline elements.

I'll need zcorpan to make these edits...

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 01:10:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC