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 wReceived on Saturday, 25 January 2014 20:50:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:36 UTC