Repeat what? Previously you claimed that the author was criticizing an "attitude" and not the way that floats work. Now you're saying he's criticizing the "available subset" which you define as floats.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with.

Repeat the thing I said right before "How many times must I repeat it?" It's not hard to follow. Here's where I said it before:

> Floats are simple the closest thing we can practically use

Furthermore, I did not define the "available subset" as floats. I'm saying that floats are the best available tool in that available subset for implementing table-like behavior. And yeah, they suck for that purpose, but _there is no better alternative_.

If you still don't understand that, then I'm afraid there's no use in continuing this discussion.

I was clear on what you wrote. I was, and still am, unclear on what you're disagreeing with, i.e. why you wrote it.