- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:40:45 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/07/2012 06:08 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 8/7/12 8:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> 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.) > > Well, hold on. Do we not want to trigger that clause for inline-tables > and inline-blocks? Why not? Yes. That should be * If a run-in is preceded by an inline-level box that is not a run-in (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... ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 01:41:12 UTC