Subject:
|
Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:26:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
593 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lars C. Hassing wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> > The expectation is that code in a
> > NOCLIP zone is still BFC compliant (although I believe the spec allows for
> > wrapping NOCLIP/CLIP around non-compliant sections of code).
>
> Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including
> subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked?
Hmm. To tell you the truth, I don't remember. My main use for it is to
make sure patterns are rendered on the backside of transparent solids.
I will *allow* that NOCLIP/CLIP can be used to allow non-compliant sections
of code, but I don't feel that would be the main use.
Non-compliant subfiles should never be BFCed.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Latest BFC Spec?
|
| (...) Yes. (...) Huh? Isn't NOCLIP/CLIP exactly for "un-commenting" a section (including subfile references) that hasn't been BFC checked? /Lars (21 years ago, 14-Mar-03, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
