- From: Tom Gilder <tom@tom.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 17:00:22 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wednesday, August 14, 2002, 4:32:08 PM, you wrote: > Following this thread I see a lot of posts containg examples for which the > changed behaviour of a float is handy / needed. But it lacks cases that > proves why the current behaviour is useful. Both behaviors can be useful - see <http://tom.me.uk/2002/8/css-float-example.html> for an example of why the current float spec can be handy. Some people have suggested totally changing the spec, which I don't consider to be an option. Adding a simple new property would be enough. Also, just a quick note, I made a mistake in my original proposal: "Name: float-overflow, Value: contain | visible, Initial: visible" ...should have been... "Name: float-overflow, Value: contain | overflow, Initial: overflow" ...I was thinking along the lines of making the property similar to the current overflow property, but "visible" makes no sense used in this context :) Also, just to make it clear, I believe it would make more sense for this property to be applied to a *parent* of the floats, and not the actual float itself (although, I'm not entirely sure on that one - does it make sense to have some floats overflowing and some contained? And, should this hypothetical property be inherited or not?). Cheers -- Tom Gilder http://tom.me.uk/
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 12:00:27 UTC