[Bug 10635] I could be reading the spec wrong, but are the default flow behaviors for these elements undefined? Will an article be rendered as a block-level element, or have no effect on flow at all? I've found several top-teir web-dev ref sites which all have differ

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10635

Tony <wyrdnexus@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WORKSFORME                  |

--- Comment #5 from Tony <wyrdnexus@gmail.com> 2010-09-30 10:29:14 UTC ---
Thank you. The behavior is somewhat defined in the "Content Models" Section.
Specifically regarding "Phrasing Content" with respect to the definition of the
term "paragraphs." However, the behavior of "Flow Content" is not clearly
defined, but only infered by the definition of "Phrasing Content."

Specifically, "Phrasing Content," is defined only as "runs of phrasing content
form paragraphs." A summary of the Paragraphs definition is, "uninterrupted
runs of phrasing content (and text) will be considered a 'paragraph.'" While I
can ASSUME that means that all (almost all) phrasing content essentially acts
like pure text: not creating any (like pure text) carriage returns. By
extension I can INFER based on that ASSUMPTION that "Flow Content" does have
such an affect. Unfortunately, I still don't see where it is clearly defined.

This is much closer to what I was hoping for, but still seems like it needs a
more clear definition.

For anyone out there who happens by this report, read through here:
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/content-models.html

The closest answer I have gleaned so far is an inference that flow-control
objects (like article) WILL break-up phrasing-content (like pure-text, span,
and a).

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 30 September 2010 10:29:18 UTC