- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:49:47 +0100
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "robert\@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style\@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alan Stearns 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. > --- This can be expressed with 'float-reference': aside { float: top; /* first, float me to the top */ float-offset: 100vh; /* then, push me in the opposite direciton */ float-reference: multicol; /* but not outside the bounds of the element */ } http://figures.spec.whatwg.org/#setting-float-reference:-float-reference That is, by setting the float reference to 'multicol', you set the bounds of the float to be the element (and not, say, the page or column). > 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? This concept has been in GCPM for years and, as such, isn't something that must be added for this use case. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-css3-gcpm-20100608/#page-floats It still needs work, though, and I hope to spend time much time with Figures this year. Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2014 21:50:40 UTC