Re: [css3-exclusions] CSS Floats & reusability of shapes

Bonjour François,

While exclusions as pseudo-elements are not showing in the drafts, there is nothing that should prevent that since you could have the wrap-mode property on the pseudo-elements. So I think your example should work,

Cheers,
Vincent



From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr<mailto:fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 12:55:14 -0700
To: CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org<mailto:www-style@w3.org>>
Subject: [css3-exclusions] CSS Floats & reusability of shapes

The current brain storming about "Exclusions" regions (http://wiki.csswg.org/ideas/css3-floats-use-cases) and the specific statement about the "reusability of shapes" in the CSS4 Floats proposal lead me to think about one of the features that somehow disappeared from any proposal but that would solve that issue perfectly : multiple pseudo-elements.

I mean, you could easily replace this markup [[

    .exclusion-region-1 { .... }
    .exclusion-region-2 { .... }

    <article>
        <div class="exculsion-region-1" />
        <div class="exculsion-region-2" />
        ...
    </article>

]] with this one [[

    article::before[1] { .... }
    article::before[2] { .... }

    <article>
        ...
    </article>

]] (in fact, in this particular case, you could have used both ::after and ::before because there's only two exclusion shapes to define)

I don’t know if there are specific UA requirements that made this impossible and explain why this idea disappeard from all the current proposals, but I wanted to bring my 50 cents to the discussion ;-)

Best regards,
François

________________________________
PS: Maybe a ::before[new] would be useful to ask to create a new ::before pseudo-element that can’t overlap with any other CSS ::before element defined by another rule. At this time, for exemple, you can have two rules thinking they style “their” ::before pseudo-element but in fact they may be competing on the same pseudo-element. It then gives a very different result than expected. The insertion order of those “[new]” pseudo elements in the document would be in function of the predecence of style rules (please note they are always inserted after any element whose position is specified explicitly).