- From: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:42:49 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Your mentioning of anonymous boxes does indeed clear things a little bit, *but*: The way I read CSS2.1 anonymous boxes are *not* created when floats are involved[1], but rather floats just push around the contents in the line boxes of the neighbouring boxes/blocks. So I still have a hard time visualising what does "a float and an immediately-adjacent in-flow box" really means. My questioning comes from the fact that, while sibling block-level boxes have just one and only one touching edge (margins notwithstanding), a float and neighbouring in-flow boxes usually share two edges (again, with the assumption that floats have nothing to do with the creation of anonymous boxes). Am I missing something? [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#anonymous-block-level Mihai Balan | Quality Engineer @ Web Engine team | mibalan@adobe.com | +4-031.413.3653 / x83653 | Adobe Systems Romania On 1/9/14 5:02 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >On 12/18/2013 02:43 AM, Mihai Balan wrote: >>fantasai wrote: >>> Ok, tried to clarify. :) >>> >>> In Class A breaks >>> - changed "block-level boxes" to "in-flow block-level boxes" >>> - added "a float and an immediately-adjacent in-flow or floated >>>box" >>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#possible-breaks >>> >>> Does that help? >> >> It's better. However, I'm not sure it covers the case where the float >>is inside a box, e.g.: >> >> <div> >> <div style="float: left; break-after: always;">FLOAT CONTENT</div> >> IN-FLOW CONTENT IN-FLOW CONTENT IN-FLOW CONTENT IN-FLOW CONTENT >>IN-FLOW CONTENT >> </div> >> >> How would be the break opportunity defined here? It might be >> expressed in terms of float & adjacent in-flow anonymous box, >> but I'm not 100% sure. >> >> Does it make sense, or am I missing something? :) > >Well, there's definitely an in-flow anonymous box there. >If we wrapped the text in an element, should trigger the >same spec clauses. > >~fantasai >
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2014 13:43:20 UTC