- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 00:10:54 +1100
- To: John Jansen <John.Jansen@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:38:52PM +0000, John Jansen wrote: > The CSSWG resolved: > > "are broken around the block-level box (and any block-level siblings > that are consecutive or separated only by collapsible whitespace > and/or out-of-flow elements), splitting the inline box into two boxes > (even if either side is empty), one on each side of the block-level > box." > > We hope this closes your issue. > > Please respond before 14 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution. I believe that the proposal has some technical issues, which I describe below in the hope that they can be addressed at a later date. However, as a practical matter, my understanding is that the working group intends for the CSS 2.1 spec to be advanced despite various issues associated with the undefinedness of a box's siblings etc. I don't suggest trying to address the issues described further down unless those wider issues are to be addressed. There is an unimportant editorial change you might consider making to the proposal: "whitespace" isn't a term defined by CSS, and might (conceivably) be taken to include \v or non-ASCII whitespace characters; I believe the intent is actually "white space" as defined at syndata.html#whitespace. (I'm sure most readers would already take it to have that meaning regardless of whether the change is made.) pjrm. The main issues that I see in the proposed replacement are: The current spec doesn't define what siblings a box has. If it did, it probably wouldn't include any elements at all, whether in-flow or not. The mixed mentions of boxes and elements may result in uncertainty as to whether two boxes are considered "consecutive or ..." if they are generated by elements separated by, say, an inline element that contains only a floated element and some collapsible white space. My understanding is that such an inline element is considered in-flow by the current text. pjrm.
Received on Sunday, 13 March 2011 13:11:28 UTC