- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:35:08 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
- CC: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
On 15/10/2010 03:36, Peter Moulder wrote: > I believe the initial example was correct and did use what Anton describes as > a wrapper box to have the negative margin. I'd guess that the problem was just > that there wasn't enough whitespace to notice. (And the fact that it would be > easy to forget to use a wrapper box for the negative margin.) My apologies; you correctly deduced that I scanned the last line too quickly and didn't notice that the float:left was attached to a span inside the p rather than to the p itself. Returning to your original post, then, I think you're confirming the UA behaviour that was brought up in the other thread[1], but questioning its worth since the float can "go upwards" but visually adjacent line boxes are not shortened. Specifically, you preferred the float to not go upwards. What do you feel about the relationship between the float and its surrounding text? For example, in this case: <p>Blah.</p> <p>Blah.</p> <p>Blah.</p> <p>An earlier block and line box</p> <p style="margin-top: -6em;"> text <span style="float:left;">A float.</span> text text text text text text text text text text text</p> in a sufficiently narrow container, should the float remain on the same line as the "float placeholder" (a convenient device despite not actually being part of the spec)? In other words, if the float is forced to "stay down", does the subsequent text stay down with it, creating a gap between the previous line box and this one? Or does the float get placed lower than its placeholder? I certainly dislike the former, but even with the latter I don't really see the benefit since the non-floated content of the p will be pulled upwards and overlap the previous blocks even if the float is kept down. On the whole, I think I'm happy with not special-casing floats here; overlap of the content of the p is a natural consequence of the negative top margin. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0148.html Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 04:35:54 UTC