W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [css3-regions] flow-into: <ident> content-only

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:28:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDJ2-3fK=h3C+xq3Wiy+sOqaRjZzxKigkg-ecz7kzBsUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that would be odd, if the border was left behind, and an un-border-able image was sent into the flow. Which box would be affected by something like 'img { width:100px; }', and does the answer change if you had 'box-sizing:border-box'?

It's no odder than "<p style='flow-into: foo contents;'>foo</p>",
which leaves the border behind and flows an unborderable anonymous
text node into the flow.  We already have a concept of "things that
aren't boxes, but still live in the box tree", this would just be
adding a new one.

> Also, this would be inconsistent with the way ::after cannot add content inside the image's content box, because we don't treat that content-box as a container.

Yes, if we ended up adopting this concept, either ::before/::after
would start working, or we'd special-case them to not work (but maybe
allow other things to work, like setting <img

> I think it would be better if replaced elements just ignored the 'contents' element keyword, and just always acted as though it was 'element'.

Possible, yeah.

Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 22:29:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC