Re: [css3-exclusions] Issue 15183

Alan Stearns <> wrote:

>On 10/25/12 2:44 PM, "Florian Rivoal" <> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:31:15 +0200, Alan Stearns <>
>>> I have re-worded the text associated with issue 15183 in CSS
>>> to
>>> reflect statements made in this thread and at the San Diego
>>> 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
>>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
>>we used to have, and accurately reflects the concern that was
>>I am on the other hand not sure about the list of options. The options
>>list are reasonable, but this should not sound like an exhaustive
>>particular, some members of the group had indicated they would like to
>>explore a 4th option: extend the capabilities of floats.
>I'm happy to add more options to the list, if better ways of addressing
>these concerns come up. But your proposed fourth option is not anything
>that would change the exclusions specification itself - it's more of an
>'existential' issue that would be a complete alternative to exclusions.
>my mind that's an external discussion that we should have separately.
>like to keep the issues in the specification limited to those things we
>can address in the specification.

I am happy to explore these 3 options, and the third one in particular through my proposal for a collision property, but it seamed clear to me that a number of the wg's members were sufficiently uncomfortable with the approach proposed in this spec that they would be prefer finding an alternative approach rather than fixing this one, and wanted that disclaimer captured in the spec.

My own reservations are not that strong, but I think this opinion has been raised loudly enough to warrant a mention in the spec, until either the skeptics are convinced or they fins an alternative way of solving the same use cases that satisfies everybody.

Failing that, I am afraid that formal objections would eventually be raised when trying to advance the spec on the rec track.

Am I overestimating the concerns expressed during the f2fs?

 - Florian

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 17:01:41 UTC