W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [css-ruby] How should the ruby display types interact with CSS2.1 section 9.7?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:17:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDK3sj7QFde-8p2VMpeTRHoFNYxzTO81TTBtb7DqiQy+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> Specifically, what should happen with ruby display types on the root
> element, and in combination with 'float' values other than 'none' and
> position:absolute/fixed?
>
> A strict reading of CSS 2.1 section 9.7 says they compute to themselves, but
> I'm not sure they make sense.
>
> For comparison, here's what flexbox says:
>
>   If an element’s specified display is inline-flex, then its display
>   property computes to flex in certain circumstances: the table in
>   CSS 2.1 Section 9.7 is amended to contain an additional row, with
>   inline-flex in the "Specified Value" column and flex in the "Computed
>   Value" column.
>
> My personal preference would be to convert all the ruby display types to
> "block" on the root and for float/abspos boxes.

Agree, assuming this means the contents all wrap themselves in an
anonymous ruby box (I haven't studied the box-generation algo yet).
If it doesn't work consistently, I'd instead support explicitly
defining block-ruby with basically that behavior (acts exactly like
block; wraps its contents in an anonymous ruby box).

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 7/15/14, 4:07 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> A strict reading of CSS 2.1 section 9.7 says they compute to themselves,
>> but I'm not sure they make sense.
>
> Which, by the way, suggests to me that CSS2.1 should explicitly list all the
> display types it knows about and for others explicitly defer to the
> specification that defines them, so people notice when a spec adds new
> display types without defining how they should behave here.

Agreed; having to explicitly monkeypatch the table like Flexbox does
is annoying.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 20:18:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC