- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 14:17:42 +0000
- To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/25/14, 2:51 AM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: >Wouldn't this be more naturally expressed by making the <aside> be some >kind of positioned float or exclusion, positioned below the fold, that >the <article>s all flow around? That depends on how you evaluate ‘natural’. As François points out, in order to invent something new that would handle this particular case for floats, you would need to add a float feature that expressed this intent: --- Float past the bottom of the view, unless the content doesn’t fit the view. In that case, float to the bottom of the content. --- I’m not sure that float value has a ‘natural’ name. And I don’t think that extending floats for this particular case would be the right decision. Is this particular case important enough to extend floats further? What about variations on slightly similar layouts that would require additional float values with requirements and clauses like the definition above? How do we decide which fragmentation effects are worth new float values? The example uses named flows and static positioning to achieve the effect. I think allowing designers to experiment with fragmentation using named flows and the positioning tools already built in to CSS is preferable to extending floats to handle each case that’s described. When we see consistent and widespread use of a particular pattern, then we should consider adding some float functionality to cover a common case. Thanks, Alan
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2014 14:18:13 UTC