Joerg, it's the diagrams that accompany Section 4.2.5 that make things halfway understandable. They have an diagrammed example of each clause.
There are also some key statements in the first paragraph of 4.2.5 - namely, that the definitions are recursive, and, that the entire point of the definitions is to identify areas that have only spaces between them. So actually I was also half-incorrect, because I spoke too hastily; with respect to the situation with _siblings_ and their space-after/space-before, the borders & padding do _not_ have to have zero width. Even where borders and padding have non-zero width they may have a conditionality of "discard", in which case under certain conditions they look like they have zero width for space-resolution purposes. Arved > -----Original Message----- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 24, 2002 9:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Spaces and precedence > > > Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > Assuming Western reference-orienattion and writing mode, clause 3a of > > Section 4.2.5 indicates that if the border-after-width and > padding-after of > > the first block are zero, and the border-before-width and > padding-before of > > the second block are zero, that we have a block-stacking constraint. > > > > In which case the precedence on the space-fater of the one and the > > space-before of the other can be used precisely to achieve this > collapsing > > effect. > > Thanks for the correction. I'll reread the spec again. > > J.Pietschmann > > >
