- From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:41:28 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org] > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 1:17 PM > > My understanding is that what we resolved in [1] regarding publication of css3- > exclusions on the TR page meant that the issue, described in [1] as: > # dbaron: Fundamentally I think the absolute positioning model is the wrong > # thing to tie exclusions to. I'd rather connect them to the floats > # model. > would be mentioned within the spec. > > This mostly relates to the material in sections 3.4 (Exclusions > order) and 3.5 (Exclusions implementation note) of the > spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-css3-exclusions-20111213/ > > The issue that I wanted to be noted, could, I think, be described as > follows: > > These rules for exclusions order and exclusions on absolutely > positioned elements (particularly those with static position) > build this exclusions model on top of the absolute positioning > model in CSS Level 2, rather than on top of floats, the existing > exclusion model in CSS Level 1 and 2. The CSS Working Group has > not reached consensus on whether it intends to base the new > exclusions features in this specification on top of absolute > positioning (as these sections of this specification do) or on top > of floats. > > This proposed note completes ACTION-415. > David, thanks for taking care of this one. I'll add the above text to the ED and the corresponding bug 15183 (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15183). Cheers, Rossen
Received on Wednesday, 28 December 2011 19:42:00 UTC