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

Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 07:33:24 -0700
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC3D3744.10457%stearns@adobe.com>
On 7/30/12 11:17 AM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>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).


Rossen and I both responded that flex or grid layout should be good,
page-agnostic layout models to use with exclusions. Do you agree with this?

As I asked Florian, do you have an example of a layout that is flexible
without exclusions, but becomes inflexible once exclusions are introduced?


Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 14:34:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:19 UTC