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

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:59 AM, 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*.
>
> If browsers are interested even in 2D floating, then all the better!

It's not that "browsers are interested even in 2D floating", it's that
page floats *are* 2d floating.  Restricting the author to only
specifying the position in one axis doesn't make it 1d unless there's
a natural and appropriate value for the other axis that can always be
determined automatically.  (For line floats there is - the line they
appear on, or as close as they can get to that if they wrap.)

Since page floats move you in 2d, and I don't think there's a natural
answer for where they should be placed in the inline axis (looking at
examples, they appear to be common in all four corners, at least),
allowing people to specify both axises is necessary.

> I think in that case it would be good if we could try to define the list of
> restrictions of page floats (compared to regular floats) you would like to
> see that you mentioned in Paris, Tab. That may cut down in some of the
> complexity of trying to place them. That we can make sure that page floats
> do all we need them to do, without getting so complex that they no longer
> are interesting for browsers.

Yeah, I'm happy to help here, but don't have a ton of time to work on
this topic. I'll see what I can write up in the next few weeks.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 23:11:43 UTC