Re: New values for Float property

L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2009-12-01 16:13 +1100, Alan Gresley wrote:
>> Please don't tell me that we are considering the scenario of an
>> element floated left now acting as an element floated right for rtl
>> (swapping sides). To make the literal meaning of right and left to
>> act in the opposite sense for rtl is absurd.
> 
> No.
> 
> The question is only what should happen when a float is *wider* than
> its containing block: whether the side that should overflow should
> be determined by the value of 'float' or the value of 'direction'.
> 
> -David

It should be determined by the value of it's direction. Take this case 
with a wide <table> as one example.

<http://css-class.com/test/css/visformatting/float-containg-wide-images-tables.htm>


If I was to remove float:left from the containing div, then the solid 
blue border would only fill the width of the <body> element* (see below) 
and scrolling right would show this border appearing halfway through the 
<table>. This would also apply if I used a background color on the 
container. If I had the background color on either the <html> or <body> 
elements, then this background color would fill the entire scrollable 
width* (see below).

* Note, is there an anonymous container? Something like a anonymous 
overflow container or is this due to the <body> having overflow: auto by 
default?

Now in the case of a wide image, the above behavior does not apply.

<http://css-class.com/test/css/visformatting/image-overflow-body.htm>


The containing div is floated but the background color on the <body> 
element does not span the full scrollable width. This can only be 
achieved by floating the <body> element.


BTW, I have just subscribed again to this list. I still have a reply to 
another reply by you David and then I have to re-address Salar's 
proposal which does have some merit. Please don't overwhelm me with 
multiple threads.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 06:27:08 UTC