- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 20:19:13 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> there very well might be an example in the future where we want to blockify but lose the FC With `inline-block` it would be fine. But with `inline flow-root` seems very bad to me. But it would happen as a consequence of all the following: - Blockification doesn't necessarily make block containers establish a BFC. - `inline-block` and `inline flow-root` are syntactically equivalent (per WG resolution). - `flow-root` inner display type becomes `flow` when blockified (because `inline-block` must blockify to `block` for backwards compatibility). I would like to drop one of them to avoid the problem. If the third one can't be loosened, and you don't want to prevent some future feature which relies on the first one, then the problem is probably the second one. Not sure if the WG considered this implication when making that resolution, adding an extra inner display type so that `inline-block` and `inline flow-root` are not syntactically equivalent would have probably been cleaner. Then yes, I would like the WG to either ratify that an element with `display: inline flow-root` may end up not establishing a BFC, or decide if one of the points above should be reconsidered. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2673#issuecomment-395878629 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 8 June 2018 20:19:16 UTC