- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 01:15:47 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 11/08/2015 06:18 AM, Johannes Wilm wrote: > > 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. Just, fwiw, neither Tab nor I has had time to review this module in depth yet. We're glad someone is working on the problem. We haven't had a chance to form an informed opinion on how that problem is being solved. FPWD means "this is going in a direction we want to pursue". It doesn't mean the draft isn't going to morph substantially as we figure out how we want to pursue it--especially in the case of layout modules. Grid and Flexbox have ended up substantially different from their respective FPWDs--for the better, judging by the positive feedback I've gotten. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 09:16:31 UTC