- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 08:22:15 -0500
- To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Patrick Garies<pgaries@fastmail.us> wrote: > On 8/26/2009 1:24 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> >> I like the text too but I will ask the dumb question: what is the >> core set of text cases for run-ins ? Clearly, this results in boxes >> becoming inline or block depending on the context but I'm not 100% >> clear on what problem it solves ? > > It allows headings to run into paragraphs while allowing the two to remain > in separate elements. I can't provide an example right now, but I know I've > wanted to do it multiple times in the past. > > Ex: |h1| ... |h6| runs into |p| > > Another example, might be to run definition terms into definition > description elements as if they were part of a single paragraph but keeping > the two types of content separate via their appropriate elements. I've seen > this done in glossaries at the end of books. It's pretty much the same thing > except with different elements. > > Ex: |dt| runs into |dd| > > (You can do this by using |dfn| and |p|, but that doesn't allow as much > flexibility as far as layouts go.) I've run into both of these situation exactly in designs I've worked on. In both cases I've had to resort to floating the <h*> or <dt> left, which has annoying side-effects. A working display:run-in would have helped out quite a bit here. > A similar case could be made for dialog elements which are pretty much > identical to definition list elements. > > Ex: |dt| runs into |dd| > > (I'm still at a bit of a loss as to why we need a separate group of dialog > elements if they're virtually the same, but maybe they've been > differentiated or removed since I checked the HTML 5 spec ages ago.) <dialog> is basically there to make people stop asking if they can use <dl> for dialog. It also helps prevent semantic over-broadening, but it's mostly there to give an answer to a common author question. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2009 13:23:17 UTC