W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: Float overflowing behavior

From: Bill Daly <billdalynj@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20020814160617.77365.qmail@web13003.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style@w3.org


--- "C.Bottelier" <c.bottelier@ITsec.nl> 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.

The current behavior is useful in a situation such as
the following, which one tends to see in books and
magazines.

     This is the start of some article in the
magazine.
     In this article, we have a picture, perhaps of
     +-------------+ the author, or the subject of 
     |             | the article, or even an ad.
     |   picture   |
     |             | This is the second paragraph, 
     |             | which is also intended to flow
     +-------------+ around the same picture in the
     article.  This would be a case in which the
     current float behavior is useful.

> 
> I agree that changing the behaviour of a float is
> bad. The
> (correct) implementation of CSS is sparse, if the
> behaviour
> of existing attributes keep changing there will
> never be
> a good implementation. There's even the risk that
> authors
> will turn away from CSS!
>
> The release of the CSS2.1 WD may already give user
> agent
> manufacturers the idea that if they find
> implementing
> the CSS specification too hard (or too much work)
> they
> just don't implement it because then after some time
> their
> problem will go away by it self. Why implement CSS3?
> If we
> wait awhile those new things will be dropped,
> problem solved!
> 
> 
> In my oppinion specification, recommendation and
> standards
> can only evolve in the following ways:
>  1. By addition and extention if:
>      a) There is a better way that can coexsist with
>         the old way
>  2. By replacement (deprication of the old) if:
>      a) There is a better way and the old way
>         cannot coexsist with the new way.
>      b) It is wrong but is used often or inoften
>  3. By removal if:
>      a) It is utterly wrong and causes harm
>      b) Is a wrong and has never been used
> 
> 

With this, I fully agree.

Bill Daly

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 12:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT