- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:43:19 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote: > block > run-in Doesn't run in > inline > block > > That last example is particularly interesting, and I believe it conflicts with > 9.2.3 if one reads 9.2.3 as just making statements about the final box tree: > the run-in box doesn't contain a block[-level] box, so (1) doesn't apply; and > a sibling block box (that does not float and is not absolutely positioned) > follows the run-in box [viz. the anonymous block box], yet the run-in box > hasn't become the first inline box of that block box. I don't understand your explanation here. In the final box tree the run-in still has an inline sibling - the inline element is broken around the block, generating an inline box, then a block box, and then an inline box. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 18:44:12 UTC