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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 16:57:00 -0700
Message-Id: <0E851D5C-E238-4D29-A613-3054D98DCE1B@gmail.com>
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Apr 19, 2013, at 3:28 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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.

I disagree. I think it would be much odder. With text, you get font-size and other font and text properties from the new container (presumably) and the lines still wrap naturally in the new container because the line boxes still exist. What is the width and height of the image when it is content-only? Does it just fill the width of the new container? Can you no longer select it to set a width and height (or if you could select it and set those two properties, then could you set border on it as well, resulting in two borders, one attached and the other detached)? 

As well, I see no benefit of having images, videos, iframes, or form elements that can no longer be selected and styled because their element boxes are somewhere else. Is this just for purity?
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 23:57:32 UTC

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