- 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>
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