W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

[CSS21] Issue 232: meaning of "in-flow" (was Re: Issue 236 - does 'text-decoration' propagate into tables?

From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:55:25 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <20110304235525.GA11129@bowman.infotech.monash.edu.au>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:30:16AM -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2011-03-04 09:36 +0100, Anton Prowse wrote:
> > On 04/03/2011 04:15, fantasai wrote:
> > >On 10/19/2010 05:56 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> > >>...
> > >>As far as I can tell, CSS 2.1 never defines the term "in-flow".
> > >>
> > >>If "in-flow" is intended to refer to the definition of "normal
> > >>flow", then tables are not in-flow.
> > 
> > How so?  The table wrapper box is either block-level or
> > inline-level, right?  Moreover, so are the table box and table
> > caption box.  So text-decoration should be propagated into captions.
> 
> Sorry, I should have said "then the contents of tables are not
> in-flow relative to the parent of the table".  But otherwise the
> point stands, as you note below.

Just a point of clarification: Anton above interprets table captions to
be part of the normal flow.  "Contents of tables" is ambiguous whether it
includes or excludes table captions, though personally I tend to read
that term as including table captions, which would differ from Anton's
interpretation of whether captions are in the normal flow.

I'm just making sure there's agreement on this point (though it's
only relevant to the extent that "in the (same) normal flow (as X)"
is a relevant concept in the spec; see further down).


Something else that may be relevant to the meaning of "in-flow relative
to X" is that the table wrapper box establishes a block formatting
context (17.4 para 3).  I don't see that the phrase "in the same
normal flow of X" is defined in the current text, so a reader might
wonder whether something not in the same block formatting context as X
is in the same flow as X or not.

I'm not saying that this is a desirable interpretation; I'm just saying
that when we do provide a definition of "in-flow relative to X" (and
any other phrases involving normal flow), then we should make it clear
as to whether or not it includes things that are in different block
formatting contexts.

> Well, "Hence" under the assumption of "in-flow" meaning "in the
> normal flow".

I believe David is questioning whether "in-flow" in fact ought to mean
"in the normal flow" as distinct from, say, "not floated or absolutely
positioned".

I believe we do want a term meaning "an element or box that is not
floated or absolutely positioned [though may be (or generate a box that
is, in the case of an element) inside another box that is floated or
absolutely positioned]", and we may well end up using the phrase
"in-flow" for this.  Whereas some text does want a term that can be
used for descendants, a term (phrase) that includes a "relative to X"
qualifier, and that excludes boxes that are in a (different) float or
abspos box than X (i.e. that have a float or abspos box between them
and X in the ancestry chain).

It's less common to want a term that excludes table-cell descendants
(I can't offhand think of a place that wants such a term), which is I
believe what David is alluding to in the above explicit qualification.

pjrm.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 23:55:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT