- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 00:14:00 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] ± Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:53 PM ± ± It seems that these are equivalent: ± ± position: page; ± wrap-type: around; ± top: 0; ± ~~~ ± float: top; ± ± and ± ± position: page; ± wrap-type: around; ± bottom: 0; ± ~~~ ± float: bottom; ± ± Is that right? Right, as long as "float:top" doesn't imply stretching the width to page width. ± As a start, I'd like to challenge you to describe these use cases in your ± spec: ± ± - float a figure to the outside/inside of a page ± ± - float a figure to the top/bottom of the next page (while the normal ± flow ± continues unhindered) ± ± - float a figure to a named page ± ± - specify that a figure should snap to an edge if it come within a ± certain range. For example, if a float appears with only two lines ± of text below it, the float should snap to the bottom of the page ± while the two lines of text should appear over it. ± This being a proposal for direction rather than a complete draft, I am not sure it is ready for this kind of challenge. You are right that it can't claim to be a replacement for GCPM floats, at least yet. I think it is important though that whatever model we use for floats based on Exclusions is consistent with page floats (ideally it should be one model -- and one spec). And I will take the challenge to the next draft... Alex
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2011 00:14:29 UTC