- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:17:09 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday 2012-07-30 16:53 +0000, Rossen Atanassov wrote: > This is an update to Issue 15183 (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15183). > > When reviewing the processing model with the co-editors of the spec we couldn't find any technical reason to keep this issue active. The issue statement is not correct since we do not require nor suggest that exclusions follow the CSS 2.1 absolute positioning. We simply don't forbid it and when used in that combination authors can achieve compelling typographic designs. > > We propose resolving the issue as 'invalid'. The underlying issue is that having an exclusion model without a connected collision-handling model is broken, because it leads authors to build designs that are extremely inflexible, and only work at the specific page size for which they designed it. Floats provide both a exclusion model (wrapping text around the float) collision-handling model (moving a float to the side or down when it would intersect another float). CSS exclusions provide only the exclusion model, which means that authors will get page-size-specific layouts when they use it with a layout model without a collision-handling model (i.e., every layout model that they might use it with). We have pretty much the same discussion every face-to-face meeting. I object to resolving the issue as invalid. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 18:17:37 UTC