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

RE: Attempt at summary of run-in

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:35:25 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B12D1225D@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Thursday, September 10, 2009 12:48 PM Bert Bos wrote:
> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> Boris Zbarsky raised an issue about the exact rendering of 'display:
> run-in'. That issue has several aspects:
> 4) I said above that 10.1 defines a behavior, but Boris thinks it is
> actually ambiguous. It uses the phrase "ancestor box," which I take to
> mean the "ancestor's box" but Boris thinks it can mean the box that is
> an ancestor in the "formatting structure." (Chapter 2 says that the
> structure of the "formatting structure" is not defined and that it need
> not be a tree, but if you believe that it *is* a tree, you can easily
> read "parent box" and "ancestor box" as being distinct from "parent's
> box" and "ancestor's box.")
> STATUS: It's not yet clear how serious this ambiguity is. There are no
> proposals for removing it.
> SUGGESTED ACTION: Decide if we want to review the occurrences
> of "ancestor box" and similar terms and suggest rewrites.

Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG resolved not to make these changes to the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. We will be reevaluating this issue for errata and future versions of CSS. 

Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution.

[1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 18:35:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC