W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css3-exclusions] Question regarding multiple exclusions incase of rotation of an exclusion box

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:02:01 -0800
To: srirama chandra sekhar mogali <srirama179@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Sagar Sahu <sagar.sahu127@gmail.com>, Praveen Munukutla <mvssspraveen@gmail.com>
CC: "simbu.in@gmail.com" <simbu.in@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD32B80B.1B6C3%stearns@adobe.com>
On 2/1/13 8:12 PM, "srirama chandra sekhar mogali" <srirama179@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Hi All,
>
>
>One more question regarding floats in case of exclusions.
>
>When an exclusion box has clear property should the float content be
>cleared from that exclusion box area?

There is currently no interaction between exclusion areas and the 'clear'
property. The value of the 'clear' property can have an effect on how an
exclusion is positioned, but this does not depend on any value of
'wrap-flow'. 

>And if an exclusion box has end property and if a float box has "float:
>left;", should it be displayed only on the right side of the exclusion
>box ?

In LTR writing mode, any content affected by a 'wrap-flow:end' exclusion
would display after the right edge of the exclusion area. This includes
left floats. Figure 7 in section 4.4.2 shows how float positioning works
with shape-inside. Float positioning around a shape-outside edge would be
similar.

>
>Regards,
>Sriram
>
>On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:09 AM, srirama chandra sekhar mogali
><srirama179@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>HI All,
>
>
>We have a bit of confusion in case of multiple exclusions behavior when
>one or more of the exclusion boxes were rotated using css transforms.
>
>
>As per Exclusion specification (3.4. Exclusions order), In case of
>multiple exclusions the last rendered exclusion should get applied to the
>earlier rendered exclusion boxes. And the inline content present within
>the the earlier
> rendered exclusion box should wrap around the later rendered exclusion
>box.
> 
>In this scenario if the last exclusion box is rotated or if any of the
>exclusion boxes is rotated with certain angle, what should be the
>wrapping behavior of the of inline content of the earlier rendered
>exclusion box(es)?

The rotation question is a good one that I think we'll need to think
through. The main complication is that I understand that transformations
tend not to affect layout. There are three cases I am considering so far:

1. A float has a shape-outside, and the floated element is rotated. I
would prefer to see the rotated shape be used both for positioning the
float and for wrapping content around the float.

2. An exclusion has a shape-outside, and the exclusion element is rotated.
I would prefer to see the rotated shape be contributed to all appropriate
wrapping contexts.

3. An element contains an exclusion, so its box has a wrapping context.
The element is rotated. I would prefer to see the exclusion areas that
contribute to that wrapping context take into account all relevant
transformations.

In all of these cases, if we do not take transformations into account when
laying out content, there will be a mismatch between the shapes used to
lay out content and the position of the elements that contributed those
shapes. I think this is a worthwhile problem to solve. What does the rest
of the working group think?

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2013 21:02:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT