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

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

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:52:03 +0100
To: robert@ocallahan.org, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.x9d081hkidj3kv@simons-mbp>
On Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:10:15 +0100, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> 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...

Fixed in  
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/a46621810b7a798faf61a1118ec7899e0d0d4252

Let me know if it needs more tweaks or if I got something wrong.

Thanks
-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 2015 17:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC