- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:44:45 -0700
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Daniel, On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Daniel Glazman wrote: > I have read the whole document and find the way exclusions > are defined in a document a bit complex. Just looking > at exemple 1 in [1], I am almost clueless about the mechanism > used to position precisely the circle inside the content div. > It seems the exclusion element is almost relatively positioned > but I don't really understand the whole thing. > > Furthermore, because positioned elements are explicitely > excluded from the algo, it's going to harm page layouts > based on positioning - and there are zillions out there. > > I think I have another model in mind, probably simpler for > web authors, but it's pretty hard to explain w/o a whiteboard... > > 1. I think the wrap-shape and wrap-shape-image properties should > apply to all ancestors of an element but never cross position > property boundaries. > > 2. that way it's applicable to fixed/absolutely positioned elements > > 3. that way, an element CONTAINS the elements defining its exclusions > area while in the current proposal they can live outside of it > and I have the feeling web authors will choke on that because of > very complex positioning... > > 4. the wrap-shape-image would show the image as a background above > all existing backgrounds of the element and "clearing" what's > inside the exclusion area (modulo the wrap shape paddings) > > I have no idea if that's clear or not, sorry. Vincent, if that's not > maybe we can arrange a conf call together so I can explain better ? Yes, I think a discussion would help understand your concerns about the exclusion proposal and also understand your proposal better. Also, we decided during last F2F to merge the css3-exclusions proposal with the css3-floats proposal from Alex: http://www.interoperabilitybridges.com/css3-floats/ That you may be interested in looking at too. Vincent
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 17:45:14 UTC