Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

On 7/30/12 11:17 AM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

>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.

Exclusions can be used with a flexibly-sized grid layout, allowing one
grid item to affect the inline content of other grid items. We have
examples of this in the spec. A collision-handling model is not required
to make this useful, and the layout can respond to page size changes.

Exclusions can be used with a flexibly-sized flex layout, allowing one
flex item to affect the inline content of other flex items. A
collision-handling model is not required to make this useful, and the
layout can respond to page size changes.

Exclusions can be used with absolute positioning that is percentage-based
(and thus not tied to a particular page size) where a collision is
*intended* and made workable using the exclusions. Take a look at the
ordering example in the spec.

If the technical point to this issue is that exclusions only work with a
specific page size, I believe the issue is invalid.

If the technical point to this issue is that exclusions require a
collision-handling model, I believe the issue is invalid.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Monday, 30 July 2012 18:36:16 UTC