- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:59:55 +0100
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On 16/03/2011 17:34, L. David Baron wrote: > On Wednesday 2010-09-01 21:19 +0200, Anton Prowse wrote: >> From the f2f minutes[1]: >> >>> <glazou> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0027.html > >>> RESOLVED: Accept change for first issue, accept dbarons' change for >>> the second issue, third issue is invalid. >> >> I don't believe the third issue to be invalid, and I went into >> rather a lot of detail in a later post[2] in the cited thread, in >> addition to responding[3,4] to the purported counter-example that >> Bert raised[5]. If Bert has a counter-example that he has not posted >> to the list, please could he do so. > > So I think the third issue is certainly not ideal wording in the > spec. However, I think the case you're worried about (which it > describes) is a case that other statements in the spec explicitly > prevent from ever happening. > > In particular, the rules for positioning floats in 9.5 say: > # 6. The outer top of an element's floating box may not be higher > # than the top of any line-box containing a box generated by an > # element earlier in the source document. > > # 8. A floating box must be placed as high as possible. > > (I'd note that we all interpret "element" in rule 6 to mean "element > or part of element"... it would probably be good to make that a > little clearer so it's clear how it applies to text.) > > Any layout that wraps content prior to the float, initially placed > in the line box whose top is even with the top of the float, to a > line after the top of the float, would violate rule (6). Thus this > layout is not allowed. Therefore rule (8) ("must be placed as high > as possible") is satisfied by placing the float even with the line > *below* its "anchor point", since placement with the higher line is > not possible since such a layout would violate rule (6). In other > words, the layout of: > <p>This is some text with<float>FLOAT</float> a float.</p> > as: > | This is some text with a | > | [FLOAT] float. | > is correct. Precisely; this is exactly what I described in [1,2]. > So while the spec is unclear here, I don't think there is a bug or > disagreement with implementations. I never claimed otherwise! It's the spec that's sloppy – writing something in 9.5 that, if not contradicts, then creates friction with 9.5.1. – not the implementations. And I don't think your proposed > s/first available/same/ really helps explain this situation much. It's not intended to help explain. It's just intended not to be misleading in the way that "first available" is. I don't see how the WG can reasonably reject this change proposal. Also, don't forget the example I raised near the bottom of [1]; there's more to this issue than just making my proposed change! That example, formalized, is: <div style="background:red; width: 66px" ><span style="display:inline-block; width:50px; height:15px; background:blue"></span> <span style="display:inline-block; width:15px; height:15px; background:yellow"></span ></div> <div style="background:red; width: 66px" ><span style="display:inline-block; width:50px; height:15px; background:blue"></span> <span style="float:left; width:15px; height:15px; background:yellow"></span ></div> See how the combined effect of Rules 6 and 8 make this test case a little different from your example, and also make the first sentence of 9.5 incorrect: # A float is a box that is shifted to the left or right on the # current line. ..."or line above"? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Aug/0181.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Sep/0053.html Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2011 00:00:28 UTC