- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:15:00 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
From the f2f minutes:[1] > http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-199 > <fantasai> so line boxes should be created for inline-level content and > potentially marker boxes > <fantasai> collapsed-away whitespace does not create a line box > jdaggett: so you have a line box with no text in it. What font metrics > do you use for it? > dbaron: known problem > Bert: We need to pick a font for finding the 'ex' unit > jdaggett: We don't have a font-finding algorithm that works without text > several you want to check against the first available font > steve: match against the empty string. Every font will match Bert's already addressed this issue, right? [2,3] > <TabAtkins> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0698.html > discussion of the phantom line boxes in 9.4.2 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010May/0698.html > ... > fantasai: You need the phantom line boxes to handle abspos static positioning > fantasai: but you need to ignore it for margin collapsing > <ChrisL> calling it 'potential' line box (which later resolves to no > line box, or a real line box, may be better than 'phantom' > ACTION: Tab propose text for CSS2.1 Issue 199 > <trackbot> Created ACTION-255 > <Arron> I feel that potential is a better term than phantom This issue is intimately related to the first three issues in [4]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0001.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0395.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0413.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0061.html Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 21:17:05 UTC