- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:21:52 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr. >> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 12:32 PM >> >> To fix this, I've written a personal draft of a new Positioned Layout spec >> I'd like to see adopted by the group. It's currently hosted on my blog: >> <http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b48H0>. > > It is certainly interesting. Need to look closer to understand the implications... > > Some questions: > > 1) I wonder if the most important use cases (yes, we need more use cases) can be solved by just specifying a positioning parent? I've posted a much more extensive list of use-cases. Some of them are doable just by specifying a parent, but most are not; some require specifying a different edge (like positioning the top edge relative to the bottom of another element), while others require positioning different edges relative to different elements. > 2) It appears easy when it only applies to absolute positioning (although implementation will not be that easy - it will complicate calculating visual bounds, incremental update, pagination and more...). But will it be enough? If such a major concept is added to layout model, wouldn't it be expected to extend to in-flow content (which of course would be much harder, adding circular size dependencies)? No, I don't think it's necessary to extend to in-flow stuff. I'm not even sure what it would *mean* to have this kind of control for in-flow, static-layout stuff. Static layout doesn't have the analogous primitives to expose. This is just a power-up of existing positioned-layout concepts. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 21:23:06 UTC