W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2015

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

From: Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:49:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgm-R23Vsr3Mmbaa8JofLDQ3K5r+JRR2T6pyLsUTpNgTanMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Rossen Atanassov <ratan@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, "Elika J. Etemad" <fantasai@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> Brad Kemper
> On Nov 6, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, maybe I misunderstood. So "float: none top" will behave the same as
>> "float: left top"? And "float: none bottom" will behave the same as "float:
>> right bottom"?
>>
>> I really feel that you only read the bottom half of my earlier email. I
>> explained all this in detail, including those two specifically in the very
>> first part, and reading it is almost certainly going to be faster than how
>> long it took me to type it on my phone.
>>
>
> I have really read your emails. I promise. :)
>
>
>>
>> The short answer is that "float: none top" means you are moving it to
>> the top line and blockifying it, but not floating to the left or right. So
>> the text (and other floats) starts under it. "float: left top" means you
>> are also floating to the left. So the text (and other floats) starts to the
>> right of it.
>>
>
> Ok, so by specifying "none" you are making the page float stop being an
> Exclusion. Other than that it behaves like "float: left top".
>
> Given that page floats are exclusions,
>
>
> Well, that brings up another point. The exclusions spec says that
> exclusions only work on non-floats. My proposal is NOT making them
> exclusions. It is keeping the left/right part as-is, and for block floating
> only moving them to one end of a different line box (and making it a block
> if there is no right or left floating).
>


Yes, but with floats they mean today's existing inline floats. Those behave
like they do for historic reasons. But when we create something entirely
new that will behave differently than inline floats anyway, I agree with
Rossen, that there is no point in recreating what Exclusions already do.

Exclusions seem to provide us with everything we need. Authors who know
exclusions will be able to handle page floats with ease, instead of havign
to learn entirely new new strategies to make certain things happen (such as
doing "wrap-flow: clear" ).


>
> a more intuitive way (it would seem to me) of achieving that same result
> would be to do "float: left top" and "wrap-flow: clear" (that is how you
> would do it for exclusions, correct?).
>
>
> To me, it is simpler and more intuitive to keep them as normal floats,
> since it is the float property we are talking about.
>

Well, yes we use the property name. And that's why I have been thinking
that maybe we should not do that. However, the feedback so far from other
people in and around the CSSWG has been to keep the name and with that the
property.


> It seems more complicated to create a dependency on exclusions, which may
> or may not work differently than floats for left and right. I'm less
> familiar with exclusions. Even if they are meant to be a super-class of
> floats (are they?), it seems odd to use 'wrap-flow: clear' when I haven't
> 'wrap-flow' at all, just 'float'. I'd rather keep floats self contained,
> without leaking in properties and dependencies from other
> drafts-in-progress.
>

Inline floats continue to be as they are. I don't think anyone is planning
on touching them. Page floats are a slightly different animal. Then there
is the third thing which has come up a few times which is basically "page
floats that float into the four corners of a non-fragmenting block element".




>
> I'm not opposed to also allowing float-reference, float-defer, etc. from
> affecting other exclusions, I guess, but I think it would maybe need a
> different name (float-or-exclusion-reference?).
>

I am not sure I can follow you there. Exclusions that the user places
manually that are not page floats are not affected by page float placement,
as far as I know.



>
>
> If they are the same, then why do we have the "none" at all?
>>
>> They are not the same. The first value of 'none' or 'left' are not the
>> same for existing 'float: left' or 'float: right'. I'm not changing that.
>> The blockifying already happens with that, along with shrink-to-fit width.
>>
>> For 'float: none top', I'm keeping the blockification, but not the
>> shrink-to-fit width. shrink-to-fit width would only be for left/right
>> values other than none.
>>
>> If you have 'width:100%; box-sizing: border-box;' they would look about
>> the same, aside from maybe how vertical margins collapse or something.
>>
>
>
> --
> Johannes Wilm
> Fidus Writer
> http://www.fiduswriter.org
>
>


-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 19:49:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC