- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 16:19:26 -0800
- To: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Cc: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: > Q1 In the following test: > > http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/css3/transforms/transform-002.htm > > div#testDiv is not a transformable element because its layout is not > governed by the CSS box model (since width and height do not apply to > non-replaced inline element): is this a correct understanding of the > definition? > I think that test is wrong... Yes, it's wrong. > Q2 In this snippet: > > <div><span id="test">Text sample</span></div> > > the span#test is *not* an atomic inline-level box: > a) is this a correct understanding of the definition? Yes. > b) Why shouldn't we consider (or treat) such span#test, here in this > example, as a single opaque box? Because it's not an atomic inline. It might be broken across lines, or across fragmentation containers. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 00:20:13 UTC