W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2011

RE: proposed new module: css3 floats and positioning

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 00:14:00 +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>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928411FA0003@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
± Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:53 PM
± 
± It seems that these are equivalent:
± 
±   position: page;
±   wrap-type: around;
±   top: 0;
±   ~~~
±   float: top;
± 
± and
± 
±   position: page;
±   wrap-type: around;
±   bottom: 0;
±   ~~~
±   float: bottom;
± 
± Is that right?

Right, as long as "float:top" doesn't imply stretching the width to page width.

± As a start, I'd like to challenge you to describe these use cases in your
± spec:
± 
±   - float a figure to the outside/inside of a page
± 
±   - float a figure to the top/bottom of the next page (while the normal
± flow
±     continues unhindered)
± 
±   - float a figure to a named page
± 
±   - specify that a figure should snap to an edge if it come within a
±     certain range. For example, if a float appears with only two lines
±     of text below it, the float should snap to the bottom of the page
±     while the two lines of text should appear over it.
± 

This being a proposal for direction rather than a complete draft, I am not sure it is ready for this kind of challenge. You are right that it can't claim to be a replacement for GCPM floats, at least yet. I think it is important though that whatever model we use for floats based on Exclusions is consistent with page floats (ideally it should be one model -- and one spec).

And I will take the challenge to the next draft...

Alex
 
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 00:14:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT