- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:29:49 +0200
- 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 UTC