- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 23:23:48 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] ± Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:04 PM ± ± At first glance, I don't find much from GCPM in your proposal. That may be ± intentional, but makes sense to try unerstand how the different set of ± requirements can interact together. The "page floats" of GCPM are here: ± ± http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-gcpm/#page-floats Large subset of use cases for page floats is covered by "position:page; wrap-type:around" in this proposal. We really should try to come up with a consistent language that extends to everything in GCPM floats -- then it would make sense for all floats to be in one spec. There may be timing reasons for what fits in CSS3 vs. CSS4, but otherwise I think there should be one spec for floats. What do you think?
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 23:24:16 UTC