- From: Oriol via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 19:25:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Loirooriol has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-display] Should 'run-in flow-root' blockify to 'block' or 'flow-root'? == I was drawing a diagram to understand the CSS Display transformations after the F2F resolutions and how a hypothetical `ruby-root` could fit in there. [![diagram-small](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7477678/29187145-001bf1a4-7e0f-11e7-8ccb-fd0846c7e779.png)](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/7477678/29187009-96422abe-7e0e-11e7-8bdf-1c4dbee2481f.png) I noticed that it's not clear how `run-in flow-root` should blockify, and you didn't discuss this in the F2F. It was resolved that `inline flow-root` blockifies to `block flow` because `inline flow-root` is syntactically equivalent to `inline-block`, and `inline-block` must blockify to `block` because of backwards compatibility. A `run-in flow-root` is basically an inline-block with some special tree munging. So it could make sense to let `run-in flow-root` be consistent with `inline-block` and also blockify to `block flow`. The other possibility would be to keep it simple and only change the outer display type, i.e. blockify to `block flow-root`. In practice, the difference should not matter much because I expect blockifications to trigger becoming a formatting context. But it will affect `getComputedStyle`, of course. I don't have a strong opinion, but maybe I prefer consistency with `inline flow-root`. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1715 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 19:25:23 UTC