- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:28:19 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
Hi Alex, CSS Group, So we should talk about how to merge your proposal and the CSS Exclusions draft into a new draft. It would be great to co-edit this document if you would like to. Also, I think we should have a discussion about how we want to name this module. I added this to the agenda scratchpad: http://wiki.csswg.org/planning/agenda#topics-proposed-for-next-call. Vincent On 5/18/11 5:50 PM, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] >± Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:50 PM >± >± http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b48H0 >± > >Ah, I remember that one. I suppose if you plan to develop it more it >should be in CSS3 positioning too. > >± > To me it seems reasonable to have separate specs, especially if css3- >± position will include all of CSS2.1 positioning, with writing modes, >± precise definition of the hypothetical static box etc. >± > >± > If we plan on that we can keep a concise positioning section in css3- >± floats until it is moved to your spec. >± >± Sounds good. > >It looks like the way to go for now... CSS3 Floats should be just floats, >it will have a temporary positioning section and we will discuss the >future of positioning spec separately.
Received on Friday, 20 May 2011 22:28:55 UTC