|
|
Posted by fred.haab@gmail.com on 06/14/06 15:10
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> NO it indeed does shoe a parent/child relationship, The diagram shows to
> adjacent blocks with red borders, but the upper on had a floated
> *child* image. The diagram illustrates how the floated *child* image not
> only breaks out of its containing block but also extending into the
> block adjacent to its *parent*. This is made visible because the floated
> image obscures the border and margins of the two blocks with normal flow.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong about your interpretation of what
the page says, but the page does NOT show the markup for the image it's
displaying in those two diagrams (one with a clear, one without). The
small bit of markup it shows above is not complete. I can infer you
are right from the point by point they have a bit lower on the page -
they are quite clear about what happens left, right, and top - but they
don't mention bottom in any meaningful context.
The text also says "Here is another illustration, showing what happens
when a float overlaps borders of elements in the normal flow." It's
showing that the inline element (the P) overlaps the floated element
even though the text itself doesn't. It doesn't say, or imply, that
this is a parent/child relationship.
There is nothing to indicate that what it's displaying has any
relevence at all to the complete markup they show in the other example
above - they show NO markup for those two images.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|