[css-position-3] link to absolute-position containing block #11239
Conversation
gitspeaks
changed the title
|
svgeesus marked as non substantive for IPR from ash-nazg. |
This was not intentional. I thought GitHub would prompt me. How can I now exclude the CSS2 changes from the pull request? |
|
Reset your branch to the right commit and force-push it. |
Done. |
The CSS2 section contains relevant information not present in the CSS Position section |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are two concepts:
- https://drafts.csswg.org/css-position/#original-containing-block
- https://drafts.csswg.org/css-position/#absolute-position-containing-block
It seems like the spec was trying to link to the former one. However, testcase:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<div style="display: inline-grid; grid-template: 50px 50px 50px / 50px 50px 50px; border: solid; position: relative">
<div style="grid-area: 2 / 2 / 3 / 3; background: cyan; position: absolute; width: 100%; height: 100%"></div>
</div>The percentages resolve to the grid area in Gecko, Blink and WebKit, so it's not the "original containing block".
So the edit seems good but it has behavior implications. Then I think it becomes substantive for IPR, and requires approval by editor discretion or CSSWG.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, so some archeology:
- The "original containing block" term was added in May 2024 in e0a3329
- The "absolute-position containing block" term was added in Aug 2024 in 046ce52
- The reference to the "original containing block" was added in Sep 2021 in 40361af
Therefore, despite using the same words, it wasn't referring to the original containing block. Then I think this PR isn't affecting conformance after all.
But better let the editors confirm, I guess.
In this context, 'the original containing block' is the 'absolute-position containing block'