W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Attempt at summary of run-in

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:08:42 -0400
Message-ID: <4AA95CCA.2020701@mit.edu>
To: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Bert Bos wrote:
> 3) What is the containing block of the run-in and its children?
..
> STATUS: There seems to be no preferred solution yet: follow the document 
> tree, the same way property inheritance works; or follow the visual, 
> the same way line box construction works.
> 
> It seems IE does the latter currently and Gecko could do it easily. No 
> other data is available yet about ease of implementation or users' 
> expectations.

That's not quite right.  IE does the former, as far as I can tell. 
Webkit and Opera do the latter, as far as I can tell.  The latter would 
be much simpler in Gecko.

> 4) I said above that 10.1 defines a behavior, but Boris thinks it is 
> actually ambiguous.
...
> SUGGESTED ACTION: Decide if we want to review the occurrences 
> of "ancestor box" and similar terms and suggest rewrites.

I should note that as I mentioned at the time the anonymous table object 
case is particularly underdefined here.

> 5) What properties apply to a run-in that is also a ':first-line'?

This was a more general question: what does a run-in inherit from? 
There seems to be broad agreement amongst IE/Opera/Webkit that in the 
absence of first-line it should be the parent of the block it runs into. 
  I'd support that being specified; if that happens then the question 
that remains is what to do for first-line, as Bert says.

I'm hoping the non-first-line case is uncontroversial, of course.... ;)

-Boris
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 20:09:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT