Re: Inline h*ll

--- Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> Nothing normative, at any rate. You can treat BR as an empty inline
> element with this style:
> 
>    BR:before { 
>       content: '\A';
>       white-space: pre;
>    }

No you can't. White-space applies only to block elements. 

As a result, my test is correct, and you, Mozilla, Opera et al are all
wrong.

> However, previous
> proposals from both David Baron and myself have suggested that to make
> line-height work well for blocks, an anonymous inline should wrap all
> blocks' contents. This would result in the same effect as with the
> empty inline BR in the previous example, and is what both Opera 4 and
> Mozilla 5 have implemented.
 
If you are wanting to browsers to diverge from the published
specification, far better would be to encourage them to follow a sensible
line box proposal in the first place.

As I see it, there is nothing that is useful in the current float
specification, and a whole lot that is very bad. It is illogical,
confusing and almost without any merit whatsoever.

Under my proposal, the enormous advanatage of having line box height set
by line-height [wow! whatever next? - box heights being set by height?]
exists.
Under it, you would be able to say with confidence that the line box is
the height of max(line-height, height). 

It abandons the damaging concepts of multiple inline boxes by completely
disregarding the height of inline elements, but simply placing them in the
line box.

It also fixes the problem of vertical-align: sub (or whatever) always
extending the line box (which is absurd) as a result.

It is also far more intuitive, and I cannot see any area in which the
existing spec is better.

=====
----------------------------------------------------------
From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Received on Friday, 14 January 2000 05:41:00 UTC