Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-break][css-display] box-decoration-break and multi-box inline elements

The CSS Working Group just discussed `box-decoration-break and multi-box inline elements`.

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;gregwhitworth> Topic: box-decoration-break and multi-box inline elements<br>
&lt;astearns> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1706#issuecomment-420474809<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: describes what is in the issue<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: do we want to allow box-decoration-break to close the fragments similiar to what would occur when there is a forced line break?<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: it describes non-contiguous fragments<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: I could possibly make that a little bit clearer with regards to bidi<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: the two fragments may end up ajacent to each other, the way the inline happens to break<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: the rule for bidi, on an infinitely long line you end up with something in the middle of the inline box to split into two. The intruder are meant to be two seperate fragments even though they end up next to each other it provides us with the information we need<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: in that case if you did, box-decoration: clone you would end up with text in between them because the bidi algo<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: I think I can try to make it slightly clearer<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: the part about non-contiguous is an example - it's not exhaustive<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: that's fair<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: I think the wording is ok<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: one about the bidi thing<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: where implementations would create a seperate fragment logically but they can never be seperate<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: or if you have an inline which has english text, a little bit, there is nothing that lets the user know there are multiple fragments<br>
&lt;chris> rrsagent, here<br>
&lt;RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2018/09/19-css-irc#T16-21-06<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: what you're saying is that it's on a visual perspective of whether it has the capability of breaking<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: that seems complicated to implement<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: this is about where it's defined to have a fragmenetation break<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: from a rendering perspective, the user can't tell that it's doing that<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: the only case this should be known, is where there is text outside of the inline is intruding on the inline<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: I'm a little worried about.... &lt;garbled><br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: this section has a lot of mays in it, we should have an issue for better definition<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: for sure<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: please open an issue<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: I can open one<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: just open an issue for defining it better and leave the may out of this draft<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: we don't have any implementations so the may is there<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: if it's actually what you want implementations to do - then I would say that whether it's a should, with a may it's not clear it's what you want an implementor to do<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: ok, that's fair<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> fantasai: how would the WG prefer, a may with a note - or a must<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: I'm thinking a note that states that a future level will completely specify what occurs in this situation<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> florian: I think that's what should is for<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> florian: add a note<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> dbaron: I support should as well<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> Proposed Resolution: Take the patch substituting should for may<br>
&lt;florian> s/add a note/should implies the note that astearns described/<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> astearns: objections?<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> Resolved: Take the proposed patch<br>
&lt;astearns> resolved: use should in the patch<br>
&lt;gregwhitworth> ^ what astearns said<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1706#issuecomment-422868826 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2018 16:27:58 UTC