- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:18:14 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:19 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Right now the CSS Ruby spec has a rule to "inlinize" the display types > of any boxes inside the ruby container. This is to prevent block-in-inline > splits of ruby structures and other such fun complications. > See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Jul/0028.html > > bz brought up the point that float handling isn't really considered in > the spec: if it contains a float, is the ruby structure the containing > block for that float, or, like regular inlines, does it get passed up > to the ruby structure's containing block? > > Ruby is supposed to be a sort of fancy inline box: it breaks across > lines, its contents (ideally) participate in the line's justification, > etc. I think you could make an argument that ruby *annotations* are > little block containers, but the base text certainly isn't. > Also, I think it's probably best if the base and annotation layers have > similar behavior. > Therefore, imho, ruby containers should not trap floats. > > Which brings us to, what *do* they do with floats? There are two reasonable > options here: > A. Pass them up to the containing block, just like normal inlines do. > B. Ignore 'float', similar to how we ignore block-levelness. > > Since there are, afaik, no real use cases for putting floats inside ruby, > either option is fine. What do implementers prefer? Speaking as not an implementor, I think it should just be A. Rubys are just inlines with more powers, and shouldn't act differently unless there's a good reason related to their rubyness. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 14:19:04 UTC