W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: FAQ about reasons behind CSS

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:29:49 +0200
Message-ID: <42C5373D.80203@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Mikko Rantalainen wrote:

> And this was an argument against the claim that CSS has design 
> constract "Incremental rendering (no reflow)".

I didn’t claim that it was perfect, see item no. 4 at:
http://www.grauw.nl/articles/css-faq.php#selectors-restrictions

Actually, I do not understand the reasons for including these selectors 
in CSS3, the’re not that useful, but ah well. Seems like in CSS3 the 
‘avoid reflows’ (which I have changed just now) is less important. But 
be that as it may be, incremental rendering is still a base for the 
design of CSS features, and only broken when the functionality cannot be 
achieved without sacrificing incremental rendering.

I would like however for there to be a clear indication in CSS3 when 
features harm incremental rendering.

The point of this line is: if you look at how CSS works and the choices 
that were made, you will see them being designed for incremental 
rendering all the time. It also means that proposals which take 
incremental rendering in account have a higher chance of being adopted 
than ones which don’t.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 12:29:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT