- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:29:11 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:26 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2012-05-30 15:06 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> From: Daniel Holbert [mailto:dholbert@mozilla.com] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:22 PM >> >> >> >> > I suppose the new solution is not that much harder to do, it is very >> >> > little code elsewhere, but there is new behavior to define, implement >> >> > and test... Can somebody explain why it is better? >> >> >> >> I had the same reaction to this change, FWIW... >> > >> > It looks like at least two implementations don't like the change to atomic inline. Just in favor of stability that should be enough to revert the change and get to what it has been for last 7 years or so. >> >> Hm, I didn't realize the old flexbox did have that behavior in practice. >> >> The reason we made the change is because someone (Anton?) pointed out >> that inlines don't respect 'height', so the placeholder's actual >> dimensions are 0px wide and 'line-height' tall. > > I think we just need to specify that placeholders don't increase the > height of a line, ever. It's more subtle than that - whether you go with the "strut" or "root inline box" model, the presence of a placeholder creates a linebox which then has a non-zero height. You need to explicitly go with the "phantom line box" concept or similar to avoid that from happening. (But yes, this should be a general thing.) ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 00:30:01 UTC