- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:45:02 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `css-ruby] siblings/children vs in-flow siblings/children in box fixup`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: make the proposed change to make processing of ruby only work on inflow content` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: css-ruby] siblings/children vs in-flow siblings/children in box fixup<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4958<br> <castastrophe> castastrophe+<br> <dael> florian: fixup step. Ruby has structure and needs right boxes.<br> <dael> florian: Steps written as if they're exhaustive. But they're not b/c ignoring out of flow children of a ruby structure<br> <dael> florian: I think if something is abspos of ruby it isn't meant to be fixedup. I think things out of flow are left as is. If that's the intent it should say inflow chilred where it says children. If intent is something else I need to know what<br> <dael> fantasai: Ruby should only be in flow stuff.<br> <dael> fantasai: Out of flow should be ignored to extent we can ignore it<br> <dael> florian: I've written text in issue, but it's adding inflow in places where it's implied<br> <dael> fantasai: Let's add it<br> <dael> fantasai: We can move on unless there's anything else<br> <dael> astearns: Objections to make the proposed change to make processing of ruby only work on inflow content<br> <dael> RESOLVED: make the proposed change to make processing of ruby only work on inflow content<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4958#issuecomment-634792889 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2020 16:45:03 UTC