- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:02:54 -0700
- To: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:25:30AM -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> On 8/13/10 3:48 AM, Peter Moulder wrote: >> >If a user agent doesn't consider the float to be part of the first line, >> >then it's probably because of the following from section 5.12.1: >> > >> > # The "first formatted line" of an element may occur inside a block-level >> > # descendant in the same flow (i.e., a block-level descendant that is not >> > # positioned and not a float) >> > >> >Presumably people are reading that as saying that the first formatted line of >> >an element can't occur inside a descendent that is a float; >> >which does seem like a reasonable guess as to the intent of that text. >> >> Peter, please reread what I wrote in the post that Tab was >> responding to, and which you conveniently quoted. No one is >> claiming that the first formatted line is inside the float. But the >> float inherits color from a span and that span is most certainly >> inside the first formatted line of the block. > > I agree that your reading is a reasonable one, and it's the behaviour that I > would expect, but I can't find any normative text that actually declares > the "red" interpretation to be non-conforming. Maybe the user agent is deliberately > wrapping just "the first formatted line", and taking this to exclude the float, > which does not inherit from a formatted line. The relevant part of the spec is in 5.12.1: # A UA should act as if the fictional start tags of the # first-line pseudo-elements were nested just inside the # innermost enclosing block-level element. There is no way to interpret this such that the float is not a descendant of the <::first-line> pseudo. It definitely wraps the entire outer <span>, and thus necessarily wraps the float as well. (Except that it says "should" for some reason. That seems definitely unnecessary. Let's MUSTify that as an editorial fix.) ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 01:03:46 UTC