You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Now that #1390 removed the issue in the spec, the spec clearly says that e.g. an element with display: table-row that is inlinified should have an inline outer display type and a table-row inner display type. But this kind of box is not defined anywhere!
From #1390 it seems that inlinification should not affect layout-internal boxes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@SelenIT If it's not possible for a layout-internal box to be inlinified, the spec should say so. However, I think layout-internal boxes are inlinified, because inlinification happens before the creation of intermediary anonymous boxes, as explained in the note:
Note: There are two methods used to fix up box types when a box is mismatched to its context. One is transformation of the computed value of display, such as blockification and inlinification described here. The other, taking place during box tree construction (after computed values have been determined), is the creation of intermediary anonymous boxes, such as happens in tables, ruby, and flow layout.
Therefore, inlinification should have no effect on layout-internal boxes, and then they will generate anonymous boxes after inlinification.
Now that #1390 removed the issue in the spec, the spec clearly says that e.g. an element with
display: table-row
that is inlinified should have aninline
outer display type and atable-row
inner display type. But this kind of box is not defined anywhere!From #1390 it seems that inlinification should not affect layout-internal boxes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: