> > As I said earlier, my issue is about how it is *worded*, not about > how > > things work. > > One more time: > > > > "Note that an element with 'display: inline' therefore cannot be a > flow > > Root..." > > > > English is not my native language so it may be the problem here, but > the way > > I read the above is that if you apply "display:inline" to an element, > it > > cannot be a flow Root. > > Forget the fact that it is "over-ruled", that the computed value is > > something else, just look at that sentence and tells me what should > be > > people's expectation. > > The sentence should perhaps refer to the computed value being > 'display: inline'. But, in general, any part of the CSS specs > > that's describing the effects of properties is talking about the > effects of their computed values, unless explicitly stated > otherwise.
Thanks for that explanation, it makes more sense now. I wonder though if writing "'display: inline'" helps as it looks to me more like a (CSS) *declaration*. A term I used in a previous post and that explains my confusion since what I was "implicitly" reading was: "Note that an element [styled] with 'display: inline' therefore cannot be a flow Root..." This would have make more sense to me: "Note that an element displayed as inline therefore cannot be a flow Root..." Thanks. -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
