DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41894>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41894 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-05 12:54 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > I think this is a step in the right direction, but I believe the PercentBase > shouldn't be LengthBase.CONTAINING_REFAREA_HEIGHT but > LengthBase.CONTAINING_BLOCK_HEIGHT. i-p-d, b-p-d, width and height are all > using > CONTAINING_BLOCK_WIDTH/HEIGHT as per the spec. top, left etc. are also defined > in terms of the containing block, not the nearest ancestor reference area. Aaah, OK, now I think I get it. The spec (I only checked 1.1) explicitly alters the original CSS wording 'containing block' to 'nearest ancestor reference area' for interpreting top/left/bottom/right (and in the absolute-position property), but only where it comes to the positioning (100% to the left of /what/?), not in the definition of the percent-base (100% of /what/ to the left of ...?) Subtle one, I must say. :-) I'll adapt shortly. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
