W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2014

Re: [css3-box] Float start/end issue

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:22:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC=FSzQrXjjaaYzg8Vx=DZnzE5Agsr3+-OACrcTDrsfsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julien Wajsberg <jwajsberg@mozilla.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Julien Wajsberg <jwajsberg@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:17 AM, Salar Khalilzadeh <salar2k@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Back in 2009 a few values added to the float property in 'CSS basic box
>> model' module  but they haven't finalized yet.
>>
>> These new values for float property would be very helpful for RTL
>> languages.
>> Please give the module more attention.
>>
>> I wanted to hint on the Issue 61 which says "Adding ‘start’ and ‘end’ was
>> decided at 2009-12-02 telcon. Precise definitions not yet decided: does it
>> depend on ‘direction’ of the element itself or its parent? "
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-box/#the-float-property
>>
>> I strongly believe that start/end should depend on the element itself.
>> They
>> should follow the behavior of the float which applies on the element, so
>> the
>> new start/end values will depend on the direction of the element.
>> Otherwise I as a developer have to wrap my element with another element
>> and
>> change the direction there!! what a waste.
>
> On the other hand, that means you can't set "float: start;" on a bunch
> of elements in some container and expect them to float to the same
> side.
>
> We've addressed this in the Alignment module by having start/end base
> themselves off the container's direction, and having separate
> self-start/self-end values that base themselves on the item's
> direction.
>
>
> Is it something there is a good agreement about?
>
> I also agree that "start" and "end" should be relative to the containining
> box's direction (so, I don't agree with the initial mail), for consistency
> with other specs, especially [css-position-3], where we alway refer to the
> containing box.
>
> I have no opinion about self-start/self-end, but from the initial message in
> this thread it looks like there is at least some request.
>
> What's needed to move forward about this?
>
> [css-position-3] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-position-3

What do you think needs to be moved forward on?  Alignment is stable
in this regard; Box isn't a good reference for these topics (2.1 is
still the correct reference).

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2014 20:23:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:46 UTC