Bug 1356712 Comment 11 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Original comment by
on 
The spec doesn't really address the ib-split case AFAICT: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#joining-boxes
I'm guessing the assumption is that block-in-inline splitting is done per CSS2: https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#img-anon-block which seems to suggest the embedded block shouldn't be included in the continuation chain at all, i.e. something like this:
```
<span>...<div></div>...</span>

becomes:

<span:anon-block>
  <span frag1>...</>
</span:anon-block>
<div></div>
<span:anon-block>
  <span frag2>...</>
</span:anon-block>
```
(I think that would violate our box tree invariants though.  We'd need to link the two <span:anon-block>s as continuations.)
Revision 1 by
on 
The spec doesn't really address the ib-split case AFAICT: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#joining-boxes
I'm guessing the assumption is that block-in-inline splitting is done per CSS2: https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#img-anon-block which seems to suggest the embedded block shouldn't be included in the continuation chain at all, i.e. something like this:
```
<p><span>...<div></div>...</span></p>

becomes:

<p:anon-block>
  <span frag1>...</>
</p:anon-block>
<div></div>
<p:anon-block>
  <span frag2>...</>
</p:anon-block>
```
(I think that would violate our box tree invariants though.  We'd need to link the two <span:anon-block>s as continuations.)
Revision 2 by
on 
The spec doesn't really address the ib-split case AFAICT: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#joining-boxes
I'm guessing the assumption is that block-in-inline splitting is done per CSS2: https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#img-anon-block which seems to suggest the embedded block shouldn't be included in the continuation chain at all, i.e. something like this:
```
<p><span>...<div></div>...</span></p>

becomes:
<p>
  <p:anon-block>
    <span frag1>...</>
  </p:anon-block>
  <div></div>
  <p:anon-block>
    <span frag2>...</>
  </p:anon-block>
</p>
```
(I think that would violate our box tree invariants though.  We'd need to link the two <span:anon-block>s as continuations.)
Revision 3 by
on 
The spec doesn't really address the ib-split case AFAICT: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#joining-boxes
I'm guessing the assumption is that block-in-inline splitting is done per CSS2: https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#img-anon-block which seems to suggest the embedded block shouldn't be included in the continuation chain at all, i.e. something like this:
```
<p><span>...<div></div>...</span></p>

becomes:
<p>
  <p:anon-block>
    <span frag1>...</>
  </p:anon-block>
  <div></div>
  <p:anon-block>
    <span frag2>...</>
  </p:anon-block>
</p>
```
(I think that would violate our box tree invariants though.  We'd need to link the two <p:anon-block>s as continuations.)

Back to Bug 1356712 Comment 11