This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 15574 - Ambiguous definition of containing block of absolutely positioned elements with ancestor inlines in bidi context
Summary: Ambiguous definition of containing block of absolutely positioned elements wi...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: CSS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: CSS Level 2 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All Windows 3.1
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bert Bos
QA Contact: public-css-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-01-15 17:10 UTC by Anton P
Modified: 2012-12-04 00:54 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:

Attachments

Description Anton P 2012-01-15 17:10:36 UTC 
Reported by L. David Baron

10.1 (Containing block) says:
  # 4. If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block
  #    is established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' of
  #    'absolute', 'relative' or 'fixed', in the following way:
  #
  #    1. In the case that the ancestor is an inline box, the
  #       containing block depends on the 'direction' property of
  #       the ancestor:
  #
  #       1. If the 'direction' is 'ltr', the top and left of the
  #          containing block are the top and left padding edges of
  #          the first box generated by the ancestor, and the bottom
  #          and right are the bottom and right padding edges of the
  #          last box of the ancestor.
  #
  #       2. If the 'direction' is 'rtl', the top and right are the
  #          top and right padding edges of the first box generated
  #          by the ancestor, and the bottom and left are the bottom
  #          and left padding edges of the last box of the ancestor.

Splitting of inlines due to bidi is not concretely defined, and so "first" and "last" boxes are not precisely defined when bidi is involved.

Proposal:
s/first/leftmost/
s/last/rightmost/
(twice in each case).

Conversation begins:
Bug Description:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0538.html

Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011May/0047.html