- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:08:13 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On 8/7/12 8:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> On 8/7/12 8:20 PM, fantasai wrote: >>> * If a run-in is preceded by an inline box (ignoring any anonymous >>> inline boxes containing only collapsed white space), >>> then it forces the creation of an anonymous block boundary >>> between it and the preceding inline. >> >> >> I'm not sure this works, for two reasons: >> >> 1) In a sequence of run-ins, a previous one would trigger this for a later >> one, right? > > No. Run-ins *lay out* like inlines, but they're not inlines, and so > don't trigger that clause. (They're inline-level.) Well, hold on. Do we not want to trigger that clause for inline-tables and inline-blocks? Why not? -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:08:42 UTC