- From: Binyamin <7raivis@inbox.lv>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:00:18 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABj=Uk+t+A0D0mi20X_9YOF4+aoNs19tWfrTEU_QQj=C1r5XTw@mail.gmail.com>
בע"ה Hi Tab, Wouldn't it complicate "float" logic if used multiple value-set like "top center" ("top" as first defined value)? Imagine if I want only "center" (static position, like in middle of text) and not "center center" (absolute position related to parent element, while still all content will wrap around it). If would perhaps work fine if defined "float: left | right | center | auto || top | bottom | center" where "float: center" is not the same as "float: center center". "Wrap text around column centered image" still will require to use "column-span" (to define count of how up-to-many element span across columns), otherwise it will be centered in single column similar to "Example X" logic in https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/#the-multi-column-model Current spec "column-span: none | all" https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/#column-span is missing "<number>" value - expected to be updated to "column-span: none | all | <number>". Binyamin On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Binyamin <7raivis@inbox.lv> wrote: > > Do we have any [css-multicol] compatible spec to "wrap text around column > > centered image"? Example https://output.jsbin.com/kusufo/quiet and > > https://css-tricks.com/examples/FloatBoth/ (proposed in > > https://css-tricks.com/float-center/ as float:center). > > column-span wouldn't cover it, since expected wrapping text in both > sizes of > > image. > > > > Would it be/stay compatible only with [css-shapes]? I prefer > compatibility > > also for [css-multicol], maybe really with simple "float:center". > > This would either be something simple, like "float: top center;" (if > that ends up existing in the Page Floats spec), or an Exclusion > (abspos + push text around like a float does). > > ~TJ >
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2016 21:01:23 UTC