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

Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

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>
Message-ID: <20120730181709.GA11355@crum.dbaron.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.


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 18:17:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:17 UTC