Re: Inline formatting model document

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Matthew Brealey wrote:

>> It should never inherit. It should, however, affect all inline
>> descendants, even if there are blocks in between (e.g., if the
>> <body> element in HTML is set to underline, then all text in the
>> document will be underlines, even though there will probably be
>> several blocks in between the body and the inline elements).
> No.

Yes. :-)


># If the property is specified for a block-level element, it affects
># all inline-level descendants of the element.
>
> Now given 
> 
>    <html>
>    <body>
>    <p>
>    Some text
> 
>    HTML {text-decoration: underline}
> 
> P should not be underlined (because it is not an inline-level
> descendant), 

P should not be underlined, no, because it is a _block_. However, the
text is not directly in the <p> block, it is in an anonymous inline
element which is in the <p> block. And the anonymous inline should
definitely be underlined, since it is an inline-level descendant of
the <html> block which has 'text-decoration' set to 'underline'.

This, BTW, is covered by the spec -- there is not even a need to look
at David's inline box model paper to work this out.


> If what was meant was 'inline descendant boxes', then that would
> have been said, but it wasn't:
> 1. the use of 'descendants' implies elements

Why? In reading specifications it is rare that anything actually
_implies_ anything else. Most things should be read literally.


> 2. 'inline-level' is an attribute only used in terms of _elements_ -
> not boxes.

You seem to have forgotten _anonymous_ elements. They play a rather
important part in the inline box model.

-- 
Ian Hickson                            ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._   
http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Epy8ieh/        `6_ 6  )   `-.  (     ).`-.__.`)
                                        (_Y_.)'  ._   )  `._ `. ``-..-' fL
Member, Mozilla Quality Assurance     _..`--'_..-_/  /--'_.' ,'
Browser Standards Compliance Team    (il).-''  (li).'  ((!.-'

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2000 17:34:29 UTC