Re: [css-logical-properties] the 'inline-{start,end}' values for 'float' and 'clear'

> On 05 Nov 2015, at 09:59, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 2015-11-04 16:27 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> It's not a corner case.  All the *examples* have full-width elements
>> being floated up or down, but that's irrelevant; in practice, a lot of
>> top/bottom floats will be shrinkwrapped or otherwise sized to
>> something other than 100%. Horizontal positioning is a requirement
>> *now*.
> 
> But even if they might not be full width doesn't mean that the
> inline content flows around them on both sides.  It still seems like
> there's a difference between "float to the top, place on the left
> side, and have text flow underneath but not to the right" and "float
> to the left, place on the top side, and have text flow on the right
> but not underneath", even though both are top-left corner.  And
> there's also the third option of wrapping on both sides.

And we have more variants to handle when you consider multiple floats
being floated to the same place, and the way they should avoid each
other (maybe it's an orthogonal property, maybe not).

Also, the fact that you may want to say:
- float to the top left of a left page
- float to the bottom right of the last column
- etc

The current page float spec has a simple model that does not
cover all use cases (far from it), but covers a number of basic
ones. It uses inline/block-start/end. If we find that
the extended model should use start and end, that's easy to add,
but I am not sure the reverse is true.

So I would prefer that we either keep inline/block-start/end
for now, or have a the full discussion of what the "full 2d"
model for page floats actually is, and whether the
background-position like syntax is appropriate to deal with it.
Maybe it is, but that's hard for me to tell without more details.

 - Florian

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 02:10:40 UTC