- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:53:31 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/26/13 6:00 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >Hey all, > >The definition of shape-inside [1] says that it affects inline flow >content. This is a bit too vague. If it only affects direct inline >children of an element, that would not be very useful (paragraphs would >break out of the shape). So we need to define more precisely which inline >descendants are affected by the shape. > >There are two options I'm considering. The first makes shape-inside work a >bit like floats, and the second makes shape-inside work like an exclusion. >The main difference is that a float does not affect the inline descendants >of a block formatting context, and an exclusion does. > >A: Make shape-inside work a bit like floats: > >1. In-flow line boxes are constrained by the shape >2. Block boxes that are not BFCs ignore the shape >3. In-flow block formatting contexts must not intersect the shape > > >B: Make shape-inside work like an exclusion: > >Shape-inside contributes the area outside its shape as an exclusion area >for the element's wrapping context. The in-flow line boxes of all >descendants would be affected by the shape unless wrap-through:none is >used. Based on the resolution on today's call, I've changed shape-inside to work like an exclusion. I added a new 'wrapping area' term defined as the result of subtracting a wrapping context from an element's content area in order to make some of the overflow prose readable. Thanks, Alan
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 00:54:15 UTC