W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

[css3-gcpm] How to create running elements

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:22:23 +0100
Message-ID: <18834.3119.169071.586250@opera.com>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org

Giovanni Campagna wrote:

 > >  > As I said, I don't think that supporting "move-to: <identifier> <keyword>" +
 > >  > "content: pending(<identifier>)" (one property, two keywords, one functional
 > >  > notation added to existing property) is much more costly than "position:
 > >  > running(<identifier>)", "content: element(<identifier>)", "float:
 > >  > to(<identifier>)", "content: from(<identifier>)" (four addition to existing
 > >  > properties). In addition, you have two namespaces, that means two hash
 > >  > tables (instead of one) holding the identifiers and consuming memory.
 > >
 > > What do implementors prefer?
 > >
 > I don't know. Let's wait for an implementor feedback.

I discussed this with an implemntor today, Michael Day of YesLogic. He
suggested using the 'float' property. So, it seems we have three
proposals for how to express running elements: 'float', 'position' and
'move-to'.

Let's look at a use case: how to move the 'title' element into a
running header. GCPM currently suggests (A):

  title { position: running(header) }
  @page { @top-center { content: element(header) }}

There is also a proposal to introduce a new property (B):

  title { move-to: header running }
  @page { @top-center { content: pending(header) }}

We cold use 'float' instead of 'position' (C):

  title { float: running(header) }
  @page { @top-center { content: element(header) }}

Or, perhaps, come up with new functional names that work better with
'float' (D):

  title { float: to(header) }
  @page { @top-center { content: running(header) }}

One difference between (D) and the other examples is that the
recipient flags that the element should be running (as opposed to just
shown once). I think this is a better place to do it.

I think I have a slight preference for D. As stated before, I don't
like to introduce new properties unless necessary and I don't think
it's necessary in this case.

What do other people think?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 23:23:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT