> On Nov 13, 2015, at 10:04 PM, Johannes Wilm <johanneswilm@vivliostyle.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 13, 2015, at 2:24 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > We should avoid that though. Consider a case when we want to extend 1-d property to 2-d, or 1-d/2-d impls are mixed among users. So just 'start' should not have 2-d effects unless other properties or additional values are set. >> >> Under my proposal, 'float: start' would be short for 'float: start none', meaning 1D effect in inline direction only. >> >> Tab's idea was that 'float: start' would be short for 'float: start start', which would be 2D. That might have been only for the 'float-reference: <not-inline>' case though. In which case, it would be safe to use it when you had 'float-reference: inline', since that would be 1D too. > > Yes, but neither one of those proposals are taking stacking direction into account so far. I don't think just those two values should determine direction with any proposal. That would be overloading their meaning in a very nonstandard way. A third value or separate property should indicate stacking direction. And since you are always starting in a corner, you only need to specify an axis, e.g. 'block', 'inline', 'vertical', or 'horizontal'. > > So all in all, I don't think we can get to a decision on just this thing before talking about the other things unless there is consensus on one of the two points I mentioned. > > But we will be trying to figure out the floats in general fairly soon. Tab and Fantasai will be reading up on this and we will be discussing floats at some point in December. > >
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2015 16:01:14 UTC