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

Re: layout idea

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0700
Message-Id: <DD1B268F-C858-4D8C-8786-A51D3C04178A@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Jonathan Snook <jonathan.snook@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:55 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Brad Kemper  
> <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 19, 2009, at 12:39 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>> No. We don't flow contents *into* cells. We *absolutely position*
>>>> contents to align with edges of particular cells.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Three kinds of positioning:
>>>
>>> (1) table-position on a display:table-cell.  The object actually  
>>> becomes
>>> the cell at that position.  A pseudo-element can't refer to this  
>>> cell
>>> position when this is done.
>>> (2) table-position on a normal flow object like a block.  The  
>>> object is
>>> placed *into* the cell at that position.  If no cell exists at that
>>> position, then an anonymous one gets made.  A pseudo element can  
>>> be used to
>>> style this cell.
>>> (3) position:absolute with grid units.  Provides out of flow  
>>> alignment to
>>> cells in tables.
>>
>> Please note that I am not totally against #2, above. Just somewhat  
>> against
>> it, because I think it confuses the understanding of the rest of it,
>> complicates things that would otherwise be simpler (the automatic  
>> wrapping
>> of cells into new rows), and is unnecessary for the goals of source- 
>> order
>> independence. I think if you had #1 above, plus row-spans/col- 
>> spans, it
>> would satisfy the vast majority of layout needs, and also be a  
>> great boon to
>> creating table-like structures out of non-table HTML structures (like
>> definition lists, or headline/paragraph combinations).
>>
>> #3 is a "nice-to-have" for abs-pos items to align with table- 
>> display-based
>> layouts. #2 just seems extraneous. Is it so that you can put a  
>> group of
>> things, like paragraphs, into a cell without actually having a  
>> wrapper of
>> some sort (like <DIV class="article">) around them first?
>
> Yes, exactly.  Without #2, you have to explicitly add wrappers to your
> HTML,

It is a natural division anyway, and so one place where a DIV is  
perfectly semantic. There's even a new tag for it in HTML5  Plus, most  
existing markup using floats or abs-pos for layout would already have  
that "central area wrapper" anyway.

> and you have to *change* those wrappers if you want to alter the
> layout significantly.

Change the HTML? How so? I would think so, if you are using classed or  
id'ed DIVs (likely).

> The first part is unpalatable and should be
> avoided if possible, and the second is simply ridiculous for a layout
> manager.

That's the second time in about as many days when you've declared my  
arguments ridiculous. I'd appreciate it if you could just discuss the  
matter in a little less insulting manner.

Even with no appropriate container,, an anonymous table-cell would be  
generated, and the question is just whether or not you can select it  
with the new pseudo-class, or if you need to after moving around the  
other cells. If it could be selected, then it really really doesn't  
need this further complication.


> As an author, it would be a significant impediment if I didn't have
> #2.  I could get around it by manually altering my source, as previous
> noted, but that shouldn't be necessary.

As an author, I would not find it an impediment at all. Nor would I  
need to alter any of the source that I've written style sheets for in  
the last decade for this. #2 might be occasionally useful as an extra  
feature to add later, but should not be allowed to have an impact on  
keeping #1 (or row/col-spans) simple and easy to use. 
  
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 18:44:54 GMT

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