W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1999

Re: Floating Boxes Idea

From: George Lund <George@lundboox.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 13:09:54 +0100
Message-ID: <ZmRvyHASeuo3IAtM@lundboox.demon.co.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org
In article <7E36FB0187D9D211B6710060979380A2992E15@caen.sfchron.com>,
Garth Wallace <gwalla@sfgate.com> writes
>I think a value of "external-window" for "display" would be better,
>especially if someday somebody wanted to make another value
>for nested windows.

Sounds a good idea.

>I think XLink in XML is supposed to cover this, however. Of course,
>as with anything in XLink, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not really au fait with XLink.
But yeah, in theory the whole thing could be done with LINK elements (is
that similar to XLink?). But this way you have a lot more opportunity
for customizing things (with CSS and structural HTML of course).


>As for the whole z-index thing...do you REALLY want that? I mean,
>sure, it could be useful for little toolbars and such, but can you
>imagine what advertisers would do with it? Yuck! Pop-up ads are
>bad enough, without being unable to cover them up! The mind
>boggles.

Yep, without it I can't see much point (a lot of people run their
browser windows maximized for a start).

But it'd be a requirement that the pop-up windows be able to be closed.
So the situation would really be no different to what we have now with
inconsiderate people forcing JavaScript pop-ups on us. Personally I
close those as soon as I see them (and never visit the site again). Even
if they were to stay on top I'd never know.

Most CSS has the potential for abuse one way and another. This would be
no exception. People who do annoying things with it will find their site
get fewer hits - that's fine by me.


Thanks for taking the time to respond :-)



-- 
George Lund
Received on Saturday, 31 July 1999 11:41:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:59 GMT