On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 2015, at 4:46 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote: > > > > - I am not comfortable with deciding on the syntax of page floats > > before we decide on the semantics. We've had semantics in a spec > > for a while, and I am arguing for syntax based on these semantics. > > If we want different semantics, let's have that discussion. > > I think we should. I'm concerned that the current semantics may limit our > choices of good 2D float semantics. > The conclusion of my last two emails was that yes, we can have 2D light without having to write a lot of very complex placement logic, but their order will matter. "float: bottom left" means that the first priority is to float to the bottom. That first priority is used to determine what space in the given fragment is reserved for the page float in relation to other page floats. The second priority is "left". So it will be floated to the left most part of the area that has been reserved for it through means of the first priority floating. "float: left bottom" means the opposite. The results will differ once there are several floats within the same fragment. So if we change it from: "float: inline-start block-end" to just "float: end start" then we have lost a vital piece of information. So I don't think that is a good idea. I agree with Tab that content should normally not overload fragments, but it is not uncommon to have more than one float in a fragment. And authors should be able to predict what happens then. -- Johannes Wilm Fidus Writer http://www.fiduswriter.org
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 08:33:53 UTC