- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:49:37 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:57:33 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/11/10 11:40 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: >>>>> <div> >>>>> <span style="display: run-in">Run</span> >>>>> in >>>>> <div>to here?</div> >>>>> </div> >> | 2. Let B be the first of A's in-flow following siblings. If B >> | exists and generates a non-replaced block box, then A is rendered >> | as if it were an 'inline' element at the start of B's contents-- >> | after B's list marker box, if any, and before B's ':before' >> | pseudo-element, if any. (See Chapter 12.) >> >> A is the span, B is the inner div. > > No, B is the text node containing "in", at least that was the intent > when this text was written. If that's not obvious, I agree it needs to > be clarified. I guess it's not obvious because of the whole DOM tree vs > "element tree" mess.... Yeah. The word "siblings" links to a definition which is about elements exclusively. The sentence at the end (and removed in this thread) doesn't mention text nodes either: # In the above, "siblings" and "children" include both normal elements and :before/:after pseudo-elements. And it's not quite the DOM tree either, otherwise really basic cases such as this wouldn't run in because of whitespace: <h2>heading</h2> <p>paragraph</p> I guess the easiest choice is to hack the "In the above" sentence somehow. Given that the rendering structure isn't really defined... -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 11 October 2010 17:48:17 UTC