- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:42:37 -0700
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 8/7/12 8:20 PM, fantasai wrote: >> * If a run-in is preceded by an inline box (ignoring any anonymous >> inline boxes containing only collapsed white space), >> then it forces the creation of an anonymous block boundary >> between it and the preceding inline. > > > I'm not sure this works, for two reasons: > > 1) In a sequence of run-ins, a previous one would trigger this for a later > one, right? No. Run-ins *lay out* like inlines, but they're not inlines, and so don't trigger that clause. (They're inline-level.) > 2) "an anonymous block boundary" needs to be defined. There are several > different ways to do this which may not be equivalent when floats are around > (e.g. whether anonymous blocks get nested or not). I presume that the intended effect would be the same as if the run-in was a block - the preceding inline content is wrapped in an anonymous block. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 00:43:25 UTC