W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2018

Re: [css-page-floats] making page floats two-dimensional

From: Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:19:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgm-RUFdPayCyKVvyYUvgybfxvXe1W9tj_L3GjPJ-Lk4F+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:

> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 16:39, Johannes Wilm <mail@johanneswilm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> > we had a phone meeting in December 2015 on page floats where we came up
> with a concept of doing floats in 2 dimensions with sensible stacking
> directions. There was another F2F meeting in May 2017 where some ideas
> about redesign were mentioned and decided upon. I heard about the meeting a
> few hours earlier and participated via video call, but did not have time to
> prepare me for much of that.
> >
> > The published draft text [1] has not been updated with any of these
> changes, and there has been a recent blog post [2] saying that page floats
> should be two dimensional. I agree that they should be 2-dimensional, but
> this has to be done in a way that does not create problems when stacking,
> and the reason that the draft text has not been updated is not that I have
> been lazy, but that the company which hired me to do work on the spec
> initially decided to prioritize differently and not have me work on the
> spec draft any more after FPWD. It is probably not quite correct that I am
> listed as the sole editor of that spec at this stage.
>
> Would you want to be listed as a former editor instead, to avoid giving
> the wrong impression about why you have not been active recently?


> For what it is worth, I was involved in the May 2017 discussions, and
> still would like to follow up on these changes, but I am not funded for
> this either, so I do not expect to be able to prioritize this any time soon.
>
> If it makes people feel better to have an inactive editor rather than no
> editor at all, I don't mind being added there as this is a spec I am
> interested in, but I cannot commit to spending time on it.



It seems like there is some interest out there among companies and
individuals into improving the spec with some concrete proposals. It would
be good if that energy could be turned into patches on the draft text so
that the spec can move forward.

I would be OK with us two being listed as inactive editors, but it would be
even better to actually get an active editor on the spec.


>
> —Florian




-- 
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:20:08 UTC