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

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 7, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Johannes Wilm <johannes@fiduswriter.org>
> wrote:
>
> It would be so much simpler is floats and exclusions were kept separate,
>> aside from properties that applied to both in similar but different ways.
>>
>>
> You have made the argument that page floats should have a different name.
> I can see some validity to that, although I don't think it is a problem.
> Maybe this is something we should have the input on from others.
>
>
> I suggest "wrap-float" for the property name, and using "wrap-" as the
> prefix for the other properties. "Wrap-" says that it is exclusion related,
> and not the normal kind of floating, and "-float" says that it is similar
> to regular floats. And this way, it wouldn't pollute the 'float' property
> with values that are actually creating exclusions, when exclusions are
> really an alternative to floats.
>

Ok, your suggestion is noted.


Just FYI: you do know that the print engines PrinceXML and AntennaHouse
have been shipping page floats using the float property for a while, right?


>
> However, the question came up recently again, and it seems Tab advises to
>> have this spec take over all types of floats [2]. If we do that, then
>> probably the name should change to the "CSS Floats or some such thing.
>>
>>
>> I could be wrong, but I took his comment to mean the float spec needed to
>> be re-described in full, in light of how the new properties change and add
>> to it. I wonder if he realized that it is not intended to change actually
>> floating behavior, aside from using the property name to create a special
>> kind of exclusion instead.
>>
>> We do need to work logical properties into an updated float spec, for
>> inline start and end, at least.
>>
>
> The spec has reached FPWD status and people have had time to review. The
> idea to make page floats just positioned exclusions is not something I came
> up with myself, but has been a suggestion by other CSSWG members, most of
> which I remember Rossen. CSS Floats were also discussed at the F2F meeting
> in New York and it was made clear that page floats are a combination of
> positioning and exclusions. You can find some discussion about that in the
> minutes related to "position-fragment".
>
>
> "Time to review" a FPWD is not the same as "too late to make major
> changes".
>

I am not opposed to major changes. All I am saying is that I don't think
there is evidence that other members of the WG had not discovered that page
floats were described as being exclusions. It has been mentioned in the
meeting, it was asked for by some other members of the WG, and other
members had reason to review the spec when it reached FPWD status. Until
your emails, I have not heard anyone complain about page floats being
described as beign positioned exclusions.



-- 
Johannes Wilm
Fidus Writer
http://www.fiduswriter.org