W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: [CSS21] Clarifications to run-in

From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 18:51:03 +0200
To: "Peter Moulder" <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vjd6fdmsbunlto@oyvinds-desktop>
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:11:13 +0200, Peter Moulder  
<peter.moulder@monash.edu> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 05:41:34PM -0700, fantasai wrote:
>>   |  2. Let B be the first of A's in-flow following siblings. If B
> Is the phrase "in-flow" defined in the editors' CSS2.1 text yet?

Not yet from what I can see (I posted  
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0314.html> a few  
days back, though).

>> Replace
>>    #   2. C has a computed value for 'display' of 'inline' and it has  
>> one
>>    #      or more children that inhibit run-in behavior. (Where  
>> "children"
>>    #      includes both normal elements and :before/:after  
>> pseudo-elements.)
>> with
>>    |   2. C is a non-replaced inline element and has one or more  
>> children
>>    |      that inhibit run-in behavior.
> "Inline element" is not a defined term, to my knowledge.  (For example,  
> it isn't mentioned in the proposal for issue 120 other than as text to
> be removed from the spec.)  If it is defined as "an element that
> generates an inline box", then the "non-replaced" qualifier isredundant  
> (once issue 120's proposal text is in the spec) and I believe
> is better removed.

It's apparently taken to mean display:inline.

> One possible issue concerns an interaction with a possible issue with  
> the new anonymous table object rules.  In every user agent supporting
> run-in that I've tested, an element with display:table-row inhibits
> run-in. However, note that in each of these user agents, a
> display:table-row element that's a child of a display:inline element
> causes a block-level anonymous table box to be generated rather than
> an inline-table as both the existing 17.2.1 and its draft replacement
> stipulate. [Or at least, the table is placed on a line by itself
> despite plenty of room.] Gecko creates an inline-table, but of course  
> doesn't support run-in.
> (The others that I tested were Konqueror, WebKit, and a 2005 version of  
> Opera. I haven't tested any version of IE or Prince, and I haven't 
> checked the most current version of any of them.)

For what it's worth, in Opera 10.62 a display:run-in with a  
display:table-row child doesn't run in. (Also, given a table-row with a  
display:inline parent, the table-row gets an anonymous inline-table box,  
like in Gecko.) IE8 appears to do the same.

> I can see the specified behaviour as desirable, I'm just noting that a  
> number of implementations do otherwise, apparently interoperably among  
> themselves.

I think the specified behavior is ambiguous.

<!doctype html>
<title>table-row inside run-in</title>
<span style="display:run-in">
   <span style="display:table-row">table-row</span>

According to 17.2.1, whether the table-row box gets put inside an  
inline-table box or a regular table box depends on whether its "parent is  
an 'inline' box". Conversely, whether or not the outer span acts as  
display:block depends on whether the table-row element "generates an  
in-flow block-level box".

So (interpreting the box parent part as best I can, and assuming "'inline'  
box" means inline box) it seems there are two ways of satisfying this  
a) Run in and generate an anonymous inline-table
b) Don't run in and generate an anonymous table

Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 16:50:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:47 UTC