- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:18:07 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 14/10/2010 18:52, Anton Prowse wrote: > [Note that if the top margin > of the float were made more negative in my example above, we'd end up > with at float whose margin area height were zero or negative, even > though its border area height would remain positive. In my opinion, this > should result in a float which has no effect on layout (impotence > again!), and indeed this is what I argued for in yet another couple of > related float issues [1,2] about zero- and negative-width/height floats, > the 'height' version of which is Issue 185.] Sorry, I failed to accurately represent my argument and opinion on that matter there. I was intending to say that, for example, non-positive height floats don't/shouldn't cause line boxes "next to" them to shorten or other floats to horizontally abut them (since it's not possible to be "next to" them, a fact which is in the process of being codified in Issue 185); and also that in the case of non-positive width floats, other floats and line boxes do/should abut the margin area edge rather than the border area edge - thereby "starting" further left than the left margin edge of the float in the case of a left float with extreme negative right margin - which is exactly the point I've been making in this current thread). Please ignore my overstatement in the quoted paragraph! > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0100.html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0182.html > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0148.html Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 18:18:45 UTC