- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 15:17:38 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
Emrah BASKAYA wrote: > > David Woollet wrote: >> This is a clear abuse of the DIV element. You are introducing a >> DIV element which doesn't represent a structural element in the document >> (and with the intention that the content be rendered as though arbitrarily >> split into two different divisions). >> >> The Holy Grail of CSS is to eliminate the need to misrepresent the >> structure of the document in order to get a desirable rendering. >> >> Also note that there will be valid cases in which secondDiv is not >> used at all, and things would get interesting if secondDiv preceded >> firstDiv and its size wasn't fully constrained. > > Maybe, instead of an overflow target, one could specify text-holder-groups. > > Or maybe, instead of defining groups, where we would have to add empty > holder div's around which you object (still a bit better than changing the > structure of the document and child parent relations for making text flow > around, tho) "absolute positioned" floats defined using the advanced > layout module might help (Where we declare which element will be floated > inside which element, and then position that "absolute positioned float" > using e.g. right: 0; bottom: 0; > > This way we'd still have 1 element for our content text. Well, I'd propose using ideas from CSS3 Advanced Layout and creating layout boxes that don't need to be tied to markup elements at all. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 19:17:45 UTC