On 20.03.2007 11:56:10 a_l.delmelle wrote: > >----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- > >Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Manuel Mall a écrit : > >> > >> My understanding of the spec is that for "top" and "bottom" percentages > >> only make sense if the containing block has a fixed height. If the > >> containing block has a variable height percentages are suppose to be > >> ignored and the property value assumed to be "auto". > > > >I second that, see the CSS2 spec [1]: "For 'top' and 'bottom', if the > >height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it > >depends on content height), the percentage value is interpreted like > >'auto'." > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/visuren.html#position-props > > CSS doesn't have the last word here. See the definition for the 'left' > property (XSL-FO 1.1 - §7.6.5) all the way at the bottom. In XSL, these > are interpreted relative to the prevailing coördinate system. Not to > the containing block as in CSS, but to the nearest ancestor reference area. > > I'd think a similar substitution holds for the definition of a > <percentage> value a bit higher up, so that "the offset is a percentage > of the /nearest ancestor reference area/'s width" > > Agreed?
Yes. This part about the "prevailing coordinate system" is an addition of XSL 1.1. The WG tried to make this clearer. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#change10 Jeremias Maerki
