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

Re: [css3-layout] shorthand for slot construction

From: Stephen Hay <haymail@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:33:12 +0200
Message-ID: <f29fb5880910190733y6fecc497v9793c63b750fb397@mail.gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Giovanni Campagna
<scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Stephen Hay <haymail@gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Giovanni Campagna
>> <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> One who can design for Safari 6, Chrome 4 or IE10 for example. The W3C
>>> is constrained by current browser support.
>>
>> I think Andrew's point is that proper layout tools could avoid these
>> types of problems.
>
> Then my point is: either we have the appropriate tools (tables), but
> they're not supported (in IE<=7), or we need to create new layout
> tools, which is what we're trying to do here, right?
>
>>>
>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layout_manager
>>>>
>>>>>> While I see your point, I think we still need one grid layout system.
>>>>>> My opinion is that we should take whatever is necessary from flexbox
>>>>>> and css3-grid (only the 'gr' unit IMO), add them to template layout,
>>>>>> and keep that as a grid layout system. So then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Template layout = grid layout system
>>>>>> Positioning = position things on and within the grid
>>>>>> Floats = float things within the grid
>>>>>> Table layout = for laying out tables :)
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is: what is template that cannot be done with tables and
>>>>> content adjusting?
>>>>
>>>> So we will end up in recommending authors to use tables for
>>>> layout purposes, eh?
>>>
>>> Yeah, of course. The important part is: use tables, not <table>.
>>
>> The way CSS tables are specified now, that's simply peanut butter in
>> chocolate as opposed to chocolate in peanut butter. CSS tables are
>> *meant* for tables in the tabular data sense, are they not?
>
> CSS Tables were introduced for HTML tables, but they're meant to
> visually represent any layout that can be thought as an intersection
> of rows and columns, although they have some feature really meant for
> semantic tables (like captions). Not the same as Grid, but similar,
> and conceptually equal to Template.
>
>> If I
>> understand you correctly, you're proposing extending them to
>> accommodate the demands of page layout? If CSS tables already do what
>> they're supposed to for tables, why extend the meaning, and why not
>> simply create a separate model (which css3-layout seems to be) for a
>> page/element layout framework?
>
> CSS Tables are similar to the Flexible Box model *without any
> extension*. The only extension really needed to Tables to be a
> complete replacement for Flexible Box is something like box-flex-group
> (since even box-lines can be faked with single-row tables, multicol
> elements and block-flow), which could be added with the new normative
> automatic table layout.
> Template Layout could be layered above Tables, instead it uses a
> different layout system, which I'd like to change.

While I respectfully disagree (as a designer, the current syntax of
Template Layout appeals to me *generally*), I understand your points
and appreciate your comments. I learn a lot by hearing all these
differing opinions. Thanks.

/Stephen
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 14:33:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT