W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Positioned Layout proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:21:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHpbgYcAgdnomvM2FMkZvr9ibTWcuxVbJbD+90@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT