W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-exclusions] Reconciling exclusions and floats

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:20:20 -0800
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB6420B4.B97E%stearns@adobe.com>

On 2/17/12 3:04 PM, "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> I agree that most real-world use cases for exclusions will likely be floats.
>> But *requiring* the use of floats seems a little odd to me.
> If most cases are covered, and the cost of not just sticking with
> floats/positioning is huge implementation complexity, then it's worth taking a
> step back and asking if those cases are really critical. Anyway, I'm skeptical
> that there are any significant cases that can't be covered by positioning.
> Note I'm assuming that positioning would be beefed up where needed to be able
> to handle particular cases (e.g., the addition of column, page, centering
> positioning schemes etc.).
>> Say I want to
>> put an exclusion on the middle yellow box of example 23 in css3-layout [3].
>> Why should I be required to redefine slot c as a page float in order to add
>> an exclusion? I think I should be able to position an element with an
>> exclusion using whatever tools CSS gives me.
> [in this] case I just see a centered positioned object. Completely simple.
> me a use case that really doesn't work with positioning, because that one is
> fine.

I'm not arguing that non-float layouts are impossible to reformulate as
floats (given enough beefing-up of float positioning). I'm wondering why
that reformulation should be required to use exclusions. We're developing
these new positioning schemes like grid and flexbox, and we're developing
exclusions, but they won't work together?


Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 23:20:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC