W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:41:45 -0700
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCAF3697.15807%stearns@adobe.com>
On 10/25/12 2:44 PM, "Florian Rivoal" <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:31:15 +0200, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I have re-worded the text associated with issue 15183 in CSS Exclusions
>> 
>> to
>> reflect statements made in this thread and at the San Diego face-to-face
>> meeting. Here is the updated text:
>>
>> ---
>>   The current draft provides a model for exclusions
>>   without a collision-avoidance model. The existing
>>   exclusion model in CSS uses floats, which have both
>>   exclusion and collision-avoidance behavior. Concerns
>>   have been raised that allowing exclusions without
>>   collision avoidance could be harmful, particularly
>>   with absolutely-positioned elements. Three options
>>   should be considered:
>>
>>   1. Allow exclusions in positioning schemes with no
>>   collision avoidance
>>  2. Disallow exclusions in positioning schemes with
>>   no collision avoidance
>>  3. Define collision-avoidance behavior for positioning
>>   schemes without it, and use this behavior by default
>>   with exclusions.
>> ---
>
>Sorry for the very slow answer. I had an action on me to come up with a
>new wording for this issue, thanks for doing it when I took too long.
>
>I think the first part of your wording is an great improvement over what
>we used to have, and accurately reflects the concern that was expressed.
>
>I am on the other hand not sure about the list of options. The options
>you  
>list are reasonable, but this should not sound like an exhaustive list.
>In  
>particular, some members of the group had indicated they would like to
>explore a 4th option: extend the capabilities of floats.

I'm happy to add more options to the list, if better ways of addressing
these concerns come up. But your proposed fourth option is not anything
that would change the exclusions specification itself - it's more of an
'existential' issue that would be a complete alternative to exclusions. To
my mind that's an external discussion that we should have separately. I'd
like to keep the issues in the specification limited to those things we
can address in the specification.

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 16:42:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT