W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Positioned Layout proposal

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:35:46 -0400
Message-ID: <fe6c80756f525048075444429747019a.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: shelby@coolpage.com
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
There are cases where one wants to relatively position to another element
(e.g. the rounded corners), but yet stay in the normal flow (i.e. the
corners should increase the size of the flowed box).

In CSS, does the 'inline-block' parent's box expand to bound all the
'position:absolute' children? These children are positioned relative to
their parent, thus 'absolute:position' is just a special case of the
proposed relative positioning in this thread.

If not, then could we make it do that for relative positioning to other
other elements?


> [snip]
>
> corrections and elaborations...
>
>> For example, if you tell two adjacent elements to be relatively
>> positioned
>> and sized to each other, then this is for the purposes of normal flow
>> logically the same as placing them in a <span style='inline-block'>
>> where
>> the imaginary <span> will bound the two elements in their relative
>> position and size.  Thus the baseline alignment of that imaginary <span>
>> is an orthogonal calculation that comes after the calculation of the
>> relative position and size.
>
>
> Actually then no need to keep them in normal-flow, just place them in an
> explicit <span style='inline-block'>, then relatively position them with
> your proposal.
>
>
>>> Positioned Layout *does* make things somewhat "dumb" by killing the
>>> concept of flow entirely.
>>
>>
>> I didn't realize you are proposing that the normal flow is always
>> excluded??  I thought you would offer that as a setting whether to pull
>> the relatively positioned element out of normal flow?
>
>
> Ditto above, thus I see why you can always pull your proposal out of the
> normal flow.
>
> Besides, it wouldn't make sense to have distant relatively positioned
> elements in the normal flow.
>
>
>>>  That makes things simple.
>>
>>
>> It is less general.  I need those new relative positioning targets for
>> normal flow too, e.g. the tooltip and corner treatments use cases.
>
> Correction, no I don't.  Ditto above.
>
>
>>>  Flexbox doesn't
>>> do that, but it makes different simplifications that allow it to be
>>> simple to understand and still powerful.
>>
>>
>> Afaik, Flex-Layout only proposes to have flow within its relatively
>> positioned cells.
>
>
> Thus I am understanding that Flex-Layout will work in my proposed
> generalization of your proposal to include relative size, even though you
> pull out of normal flow.
>
> [snip]
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 21:36:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT