Re: [css-regions] responsive and semantic use of named flows

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

I don't believe your use-case is naturally a fragmentation effect. You see
it that way because you're looking through the lens of CSS Regions :-).

For example, a simple variation on your use-case would be to have the
<aside> take up less than the full width of the body, and allow article
text to flow to the right of it. Then it's obviously a float and your
region approach won't work.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w