- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 13:15:23 -0400
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>

In the light of day I noticed two issues with my proposal from yesterday: Boris Zbarsky wrote: > 4) A nonempty set of in-flow boxes is called "consecutive" if all > elements of the set have the same parent, and if no box not in > the set is adjacent to two different boxes in the set. In the light of day, this is clearly bogus. The right definition here should probably involve actually having an ordering on the in-flow child boxes of the parent, and saying that a nonempty set is consecutive if there is no box not in the set that has the same parent and comes before some box in the set and after some other box in the set. > 7) If a box P is a 'table-row' box and contains a child T which is > not a 'table-cell' box, generate a 'table-cell' box P'. Take > the maximal consecutive set of boxes which contains T and > consists only of boxes that are not 'table-cell' boxes, and > wrap this set in P'. If P' now has only one child and this > child is discardable, discard P'. Otherwise, if P' now has an > in-flow child box which is the placeholder for a box S and S > has a computed value of 'float' other than 'none', then P' > becomes the containing block os S. That should be "of S", of course. It also becomes the containing block for any floats which would have been kids of inlines that are ending up in this cell if they'd been in-flow, but I think that's already handled by rule 2 in section 10.1. In general, it's not quite clear in the spec whether being taken out of flow changes the parent of a box... Section 10.1 seems to assume that it does not and this should probably be spelled out somewhere in that missing section that would define the general terminology of the box tree and explain how to construct it. -Boris

Received on Saturday, 30 May 2009 17:16:04 UTC