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

Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:44:20 +0200
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <op.wmqiz6yqf5de51@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:31:15 +0200, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> I have re-worded the text associated with issue 15183 in CSS Exclusions  
> to
> reflect statements made in this thread and at the San Diego face-to-face
> meeting. Here is the updated text:
> ---
>   The current draft provides a model for exclusions
>   without a collision-avoidance model. The existing
>   exclusion model in CSS uses floats, which have both
>   exclusion and collision-avoidance behavior. Concerns
>   have been raised that allowing exclusions without
>   collision avoidance could be harmful, particularly
>   with absolutely-positioned elements. Three options
>   should be considered:
>   1. Allow exclusions in positioning schemes with no
>   collision avoidance
>  2. Disallow exclusions in positioning schemes with
>   no collision avoidance
>  3. Define collision-avoidance behavior for positioning
>   schemes without it, and use this behavior by default
>   with exclusions.
> ---

Sorry for the very slow answer. I had an action on me to come up with a  
new wording for this issue, thanks for doing it when I took too long.

I think the first part of your wording is an great improvement over what  
we used to have, and accurately reflects the concern that was expressed.

I am on the other hand not sure about the list of options. The options you  
list are reasonable, but this should not sound like an exhaustive list. In  
particular, some members of the group had indicated they would like to  
explore a 4th option: extend the capabilities of floats.

  - Florian
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 12:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:23 UTC