- From: James Elmore <James.Elmore@cox.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 08:13:50 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, CSS <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 2, 2008, at 11:51 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > I would say we want much the same thing, but would specify it > differently. I would do it by giving absolute positioning as a > value of float, and you would do it by giving certain float-like > capabilities to absolutely positioned items. > > I think your "wrap" attribute makes sense only for absolutely > positioned items, but I can't see any use for it for static or > relatively positioned items (or even what those terms would mean > with wrap applied to them). Correct me if I am wrong about that. Last summer, I posted a more complete defense of this proposal, including use cases for positioning and 'wrapping' relative, absolute, and even relative to a particular block. If you don't have access to the archives, I would be happy to send you the links or even copy the text so you can see what I have already posted without duplicating everything for the entire group. > I would hope that any experienced CSS user would recognize both > "absolute" and "float" too. But "wrap" would be something new. The > familiarity of the words "absolute" and "float" and the newness of > "wrap" and what it does (applying only to absolutely or fixedly > positioned items) makes my way a little better, IMAO (In My > Arrogant Opinion). I am not so arrogant that I believe my suggestion is perfect. I have already found one problem with it, thanks to your 'arrogant' opinion. So be proud of your ideas, just don't think they are perfect. > I can easily imagine wanting to position something above two other > blocks and having the inline content of those blocks flow around it > (as well as their non-positioned floats). This has been suggested numerous times before in this group. Positioning a block and having the contents of other blocks which it intersects flow around it is the general case of the problem I (or perhaps we) are trying to solve. > >> Maybe we could use 'position: float;' That would tell the >> rendering engine that the EXACT position of the element is not >> fixed, only suggested, and that it would have to move to make >> space for other 'floated' elements. > > Hmm. Or maybe it would depend on z-axis, or on the relationship of > the item to the other floats (siblings, "cousins", etc.). After I sent this off, I also thought that we could include the elements which are to be 'floated' in a common block and float the block. This is a less than ideal solution, but at least answers some of the questions. Does anyone else out there have a better idea? James Elmore
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2008 16:14:03 UTC