Re: [css3-exclusions] Feedback on exclusions document

Hi David,

On 5/10/11 3:34 PM, "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

>I am assuming wrap-shape-mode applies to block-level elements.

Yes. Are you pointing out that the "Applies to" line should say "any block
level element" and not just "any block element"?

>This would also allow it to be applicable to replaced elements like
>images.

Ok.

>
>Keywords like left/right/top-bottom are bothersome from a writing-modes
>perspective, since there's no way they would really be physical (you're
>really referring to line edges with left/right).

What should we use instead? We followed the precedents of border and float
for example. Are you suggesting changing the values or to change the
description of the values so that they talk about line edges instead of a
hard coded run-direction? I think the later, but would like to make sure.

>
>For all the subsequent wrap-* properties, I would say that they apply to
>"exclusions" rather than continuing to say "any block element," since I
>am assuming wrap-shape-mode is what makes you an exclusion.

Yes.

>
>For float exclusions, it feels weird to me that you have to give a
>direction when the float is already hugging one particular side.  I don't
>have a particularly great suggestion here... it just seems silly to me to
>have to say <img style="float:left; wrap-shape-mode: right"> when that's
>pretty much always what I'll want if I make an exclusion.  Maybe a
>keyword that just indicates to base it off the float placement would be
>useful.

Actually, we are thinking that we should separate the issues in the
exclusions spec. into two pieces:

A. One that talks about how exclusions are positioned. Really, this is an
extension of floats, and would only talk about float placement (more than
just left and right) and how content flows around the float (extension to
clear).

B. One that talks about the shape of exclusions. This would move from
being a rectangular only area to being an arbitrary shape.

>
>The wrap-shape-image properties bug me in the sense that I would expect a
>simple floating <img> tag to be able to act as an exclusion and have
>content wrap around its particular image.  I think having to make a div
>instead is overly complicated, and it would defeat the browser's built-in
>user interface for working with images (e.g., Save Image As... / Open
>Image in New Window / Copy Image Address, etc.).  One possible idea for
>solving this issue would be to leverage wrap-shape:auto to not just use
>the content box in the case of images.
>
><img style="float:left; wrap-shape:auto"> could mean to use the image.

Yes, I agree that would be nice and quite intuitive.
>
>The Combining Exclusions section is really unclear.  I think you might
>need to get more rigorous regarding the rules, especially given that the
>border boxes of the blocks and the wrap shapes of the blocks can differ.

Ok. I'll add it to the list of sections to re-word.
>
>wrap-shape-order concerns me in that I still wish we could latch on to
>existing z-order concepts instead of having to invent yet another stack.

Yes, it is a concern. What do you think of the idea above to separate out
the positioning of floats from the specification of exclusions?

Thanks,
Vincent

Received on Monday, 16 May 2011 18:55:40 UTC