W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-box] run-ins: an alternative model

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:40:45 -0700
Message-ID: <5021C39D.5000707@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/07/2012 06:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> 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?

Yes. That should be

     * If a run-in is preceded by an inline-level box that is not
       a run-in (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...

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT