- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:18:08 +0000
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
± From: David Hyatt [mailto:hyatt@apple.com] ± Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 9:33 AM ± ± On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Alan Stearns wrote: ± ± > On 9/26/11 5:41 PM, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: ± > ± >> I like the "top of page" rule. It would make no sense to me if ± >> clearance could be applied to part of a block. ± >> ± >> I also agree that use cases with overlapping floats can only occur ± >> from bad design or misuse of content, so it doesn't matter all that ± >> much what the result is... ± > ± > If it does not matter all that much, then why invent a new rule? I ± > think staggered content is always preferable to overlapping. I'm not ± > entirely sure whether staggering continuations are preferable to ± > overriding author intent by squeezing, but so far I haven't been ± > convinced that the top-of-page continuation rule is useful enough to ± > warrant a new layout algorithm. ± ± I agree. I don't think we need this additional rule. It's not a clear ± benefit, so let's not complicate implementations with it. Not sure why this is called "rules" to begin with. It is a set of choices that implementers have to make anyway. We may have made different ones so it looks like more work to you... So, do you want to treat continued float as a separate float, with same properties except for removing top margin/border/padding/clearance? And it can get pushed down and sit in the middle of the page, with no visual indication of where it is continuing from? I don't know if it is easier or harder to implement, but are you sure it is better?
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 17:18:38 UTC