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

Re: [css-position] 'left' & 'right' over-constrained

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 08:33:30 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAvFpqMJgCzkBWaXXHDm9VLE1eCZY9tDDkrb+5Ad0nLTg@mail.gmail.com>
To: 那磊 <leif.na@hotmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:14 PM, 那磊 <leif.na@hotmail.com> wrote:
>  Dear working group,
>
> I found that it's weird between the description in the eighth paragraph of
> section 6.1. Relative positioning and the followed EXAMPLE 2.
>
> Here is, cause 'one of them has to be ignored', but in the case 'left' wins,
> the 'right' becomes -'left'  instead of ignored. So, is it an
> self-contradictory or confusion error in describing?
>
> And here, in the EXAMPLE 2, the three 'direction' should NOT appear here but
> appear in another rule to constrain the right containing block, established
> by the nearest ancestor block-level box, which did'n appeared in this
> example, should it? Cause the 'direction' you mentioned belongs to the
> containing block of the relatively positoned elements, according to the
> definition of containing block, that must is the nearest ancestor box,
> instead of the 'div.a8' itself(themselves). So, the presence of 'direction's
> in the EXAMPLE 2 is inopportune. If my understand is right, I suggest you
> can add a note of assumption first.
>
> For your information, the key words above are: 'ignored', 'containing
> block', 'direction'.

One of the directions is indeed ignored in overconstrained situations,
but "ignoring" is equivalent to setting one to the negative of the
other; when "position:relative" is set, "left: 20px" and "right:-20px"
are exactly the same.  The example is just trying to make the effect a
bit clearer.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 21:34:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC