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

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:15 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> 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.



Right, we agree on that. I am not sure who has different ideas about this.

The entire point was that we were here initially talking about page floats
as if there was no current proposal at all. And when Tab suggested to have
information about other types of floats in the same spec.


On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> 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.
>
>
...


I then went on to point out that the usage of exclusions was not something
that had happened in secret, but that it had both been mentioned at F2F
meetings and that there had been a FPWD version, which should at least in
theory force member organization to have some basic reading of the current
draft.





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