W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2003

Re: run-in boxes

From: Felix Breuer <felix@fbreuer.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:55:01 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031011235501.GA2332@tapir>

On 17:12 Sat 11 Oct     , fantasai wrote:
> 
> Felix Breuer wrote:
> >
> >Looking at both "CSS 2.1" and "CSS 3: the box model" I could not find out
> >how the following is supposed to be rendered:
> >
> ><div class="block">
> >    <div class="runin">Is this supposed</div>
> >    <div class="inline">to run in?</div>
> ></div>
> ...
> 
> Might want to take a look at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000May/0004.html
> 
> While we're on the topic, though, I'd like to bring up
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000May/0010.html
> as well.

These two mails basically say that a run-in element followed by an
inline element are rendered as two blocks (on two lines). However,
the CSS3 Box draft refers to "Ian's tests" [1] and there it says 

<div class="test">
   <span class="h block"> This is a block on its own. </span>
   <span class="g run-in"> This text should </span>
   <span class="g inline"> run-in to this one. </span>
   <!-- ...because the inline is wrapped in an anonymous block box. -->
</div>

Am I right in concluding that the intended sequence of events is
1) The user agent encounters the first element and determines its
   display-role. Since this is "block" all "inline" siblings are wrapped 
   in anonymous block boxes. This wrapping takes place immediately.
   1a) The user agent checks whether the second element has to be
       wrapped. Since it is a "run-in" element it is not wrapped, even
       though it has not been determined whether the "run-in" element
       will become a "block" or an "inline" element.
   1b) The user agent wraps the third element because this is clearly
       inline.
2) The user agent encounters the run-in element, notices that a block
   box follows and thus adds the run-in as an inline box to the anonymous
   block box.
..

Hm, this algorithm still looks funny to me. Does it reflect the intended
behaviour?

Thanks, 
Felix Breuer
Received on Saturday, 11 October 2003 19:57:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:24 GMT