anybody mind if I commit my changes?

[Leo Savernik]

Am Sonntag, 17. August 2003 23:43 schrieb Dirk Mueller:
[...]
> Read Section 9.4.2.
>
my reading of 9.4.2:

> "Since an inline box may not exceed the width of a line box, long inline
> boxes are split into several [inline] boxes and these [inline] boxes 
> distributed across several line boxes.[...]"
>
Which basically says that inline boxes are atomic visual objects, i. e., never 
splitted across line. (I'm speaking about the result stored in those boxes 
after layout, not the _potential_ splitting locations.)
[...]
> If I understand the purpose of the patches correctly (which I didn't much
> look into yet I must admit), then the correct term is "line box", which is
> a visual representation of a "line of text" in the easiest case, but it can
> be more complex (containing other inline elements, like images etc).

So LineBox effectively resembles RootInlineBox. I think RootInlineBox should 
be renamed to LineBox, but all others should be left.
>
[...]
>
> So we rename TextSlave aka TextRun aka TextLineBox, agree? or LineTextBox?

Well, given the fact that a TextSlave itself represents an atomic visual 
object, and there can be a multitude of TextSlaves on one line (but not for 
the same element) it effectively is an inline box. So I'm very in favour of 
renaming TextSlave to InlineTextBox.
>
[...]

hope I didn't misunderstand the point of the discussion ;-)