Discussion:
[css-page-floats] making page floats two-dimensional
(too old to reply)
Johannes Wilm
2018-04-05 07:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Hey,
we had a phone meeting in December 2015 on page floats where we came up
with a concept of doing floats in 2 dimensions with sensible stacking
directions. There was another F2F meeting in May 2017 where some ideas
about redesign were mentioned and decided upon. I heard about the meeting a
few hours earlier and participated via video call, but did not have time to
prepare me for much of that.

The published draft text [1] has not been updated with any of these
changes, and there has been a recent blog post [2] saying that page floats
should be two dimensional. I agree that they should be 2-dimensional, but
this has to be done in a way that does not create problems when stacking,
and the reason that the draft text has not been updated is not that I have
been lazy, but that the company which hired me to do work on the spec
initially decided to prioritize differently and not have me work on the
spec draft any more after FPWD. It is probably not quite correct that I am
listed as the sole editor of that spec at this stage.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-page-floats-3/
[2] https://www.pagedmedia.org/page-floats/
--
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880
Florian Rivoal
2018-04-05 09:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Hey,
we had a phone meeting in December 2015 on page floats where we came up with a concept of doing floats in 2 dimensions with sensible stacking directions. There was another F2F meeting in May 2017 where some ideas about redesign were mentioned and decided upon. I heard about the meeting a few hours earlier and participated via video call, but did not have time to prepare me for much of that.
The published draft text [1] has not been updated with any of these changes, and there has been a recent blog post [2] saying that page floats should be two dimensional. I agree that they should be 2-dimensional, but this has to be done in a way that does not create problems when stacking, and the reason that the draft text has not been updated is not that I have been lazy, but that the company which hired me to do work on the spec initially decided to prioritize differently and not have me work on the spec draft any more after FPWD. It is probably not quite correct that I am listed as the sole editor of that spec at this stage.
Would you want to be listed as a former editor instead, to avoid giving the wrong impression about why you have not been active recently?

For what it is worth, I was involved in the May 2017 discussions, and still would like to follow up on these changes, but I am not funded for this either, so I do not expect to be able to prioritize this any time soon.

If it makes people feel better to have an inactive editor rather than no editor at all, I don't mind being added there as this is a spec I am interested in, but I cannot commit to spending time on it.

—Florian
Johannes Wilm
2018-04-05 09:19:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes Wilm
Post by Johannes Wilm
Hey,
we had a phone meeting in December 2015 on page floats where we came up
with a concept of doing floats in 2 dimensions with sensible stacking
directions. There was another F2F meeting in May 2017 where some ideas
about redesign were mentioned and decided upon. I heard about the meeting a
few hours earlier and participated via video call, but did not have time to
prepare me for much of that.
Post by Johannes Wilm
The published draft text [1] has not been updated with any of these
changes, and there has been a recent blog post [2] saying that page floats
should be two dimensional. I agree that they should be 2-dimensional, but
this has to be done in a way that does not create problems when stacking,
and the reason that the draft text has not been updated is not that I have
been lazy, but that the company which hired me to do work on the spec
initially decided to prioritize differently and not have me work on the
spec draft any more after FPWD. It is probably not quite correct that I am
listed as the sole editor of that spec at this stage.
Would you want to be listed as a former editor instead, to avoid giving
the wrong impression about why you have not been active recently?
For what it is worth, I was involved in the May 2017 discussions, and
still would like to follow up on these changes, but I am not funded for
this either, so I do not expect to be able to prioritize this any time soon.
If it makes people feel better to have an inactive editor rather than no
editor at all, I don't mind being added there as this is a spec I am
interested in, but I cannot commit to spending time on it.
It seems like there is some interest out there among companies and
individuals into improving the spec with some concrete proposals. It would
be good if that energy could be turned into patches on the draft text so
that the spec can move forward.

I would be OK with us two being listed as inactive editors, but it would be
even better to actually get an active editor on the spec.
Post by Johannes Wilm
—Florian
--
Johannes Wilm
http://www.johanneswilm.org
tel: +1 (520) 399 8880
Rachel Andrew
2018-04-09 18:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Florian Rivoal
Would you want to be listed as a former editor instead, to avoid giving the wrong impression about why you have not been active recently?
For what it is worth, I was involved in the May 2017 discussions, and still would like to follow up on these changes, but I am not funded for this either, so I do not expect to be able to prioritize this any time soon.
If it makes people feel better to have an inactive editor rather than no editor at all, I don't mind being added there as this is a spec I am interested in, but I cannot commit to spending time on it.
I would be happy to work on this spec. It fits with the knowledge I’m building up around multicol and my interest in Paged Media.

I’m not funded to do anything, so I can’t promise how much time I have available but it feels as if it sits well alongside other things I am working on which helps.


—

Rachel Andrew

https://rachelandrew.co.uk <https://rachelandrew.co.uk/>
https://twitter.com/rachelandrew

Loading...