17778 2012-07-14 11:16:11 +0000 Undefined term "block equivalent" used in painting order rules in Appendix E 2012-12-04 00:54:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS CSS Level 2 unspecified All Windows 3.1 NEW P2 normal --- 1 antonsforums bert public-css-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 69979 0 antonsforums 2012-07-14 11:16:11 +0000 Reported by Simon Sapin Steps 2 and 4 in the painting order rules in Appendix E use the following condition: # If the element is a block, list-item, or other block equivalent: The term "block equivalent" is undefined in CSS21. We deduce that it must include inline-level block container boxes such as inline-blocks and inline-table wrapper boxes, else such boxes do not have their background and borders painted in the algorithm. This term should be clarified. Conversation begins: Bug description: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0443.html 69980 1 antonsforums 2012-07-14 12:55:23 +0000 The term must also include block-level replaced elements, for the same reason. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0336.html 69986 2 antonsforums 2012-07-14 13:34:55 +0000 Proposal A: Replace: # Step 2: If the element is a block, list-item, or other block # equivalent: with | Step 2: If the element is a block container or block-level replaced | element: Similarly, replace: # Step 4: For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level # descendants in tree order: If the element is a block, # list-item, or other block equivalent: with: | Step 4: For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level | descendants in tree order: | If the element is a block container or replaced element: (Note the line break, which I think adds needed clarity). The suggested replacement in the former case has a dependency on Bug 17780 since it needs to exclude table cells. The suggested replacement in the latter case has a dependency on Bug 17779 since since it needs to exclude replaced table boxes. Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0498.html 69992 3 antonsforums 2012-07-14 22:48:10 +0000 Since a table element is a block container element (in that its principal table wrapper box is a block container box), Proposal A fails because table elements are caught by the first part of Steps 2 and 4 instead of falling through to the second part. Proposal B: In Step 2, replace: # If the element is a block, list-item, or other block equivalent: # [...] # # Otherwise, if the element is a block level table: # [...] with: | If the element is a block level table: | [...] | | Otherwise, if the element is a block container or block-level | replaced element: | [...] In Step 4, replace: # For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level descendants in # tree order: If the element is a block, list-item, or other block # equivalent: # [...] # # Otherwise, the element is a table: # [...] with: | For all its in-flow, non-positioned, block-level descendants in | tree order: | If the element is a table: | [...] | | Otherwise, the element is a block container or replaced element: | [...] Proposal derived from discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jul/0337.html 69993 4 antonsforums 2012-07-14 22:49:33 +0000 Proposal B has the same dependencies as Proposal A. 69996 5 antonsforums 2012-07-14 23:03:41 +0000 Bug 17782 also affects this text. For a proposal which combines Proposal B above with Proposal A from Bug 17782, see comment #3 in Bug 17782.