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

Re: Positioned Layout proposal

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:55:16 -0400
Message-ID: <a41cb13757c66de8b240b70216c5c115.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> On 10/19/10 12:14 PM, Shelby Moore wrote:
>> How does it "complicate" orthogonal algorithms? For example, a visual
>> bounds test walks the element tree
>
> No UA I'm aware of walks the element tree here; all would operate on the
> box model instead...

Oic, they are using a hierarchal optimization.

But there are ways to optimize the general case, such as dirty lists.
Correct?


>> If pagination algorithm has been designed to be sufficiently orthogonal,
>> then afaics it should also not be touched for this proposal. Are you
>> concerned or aware that some layout engines may not be coded with
>> sufficiently orthogonal (non-spaghetti) design?
>
> "All of them", I would expect.


So the issue is may require a rewrite (refactor) of too much code that is
too legacy-twined? So not easy to get there from here.

Thanks for the frank assessment.

I may be of assistance on a re-start next year.


>> I do not know what you mean by "incremental update"? Is that an
>> algorithm
>> that bypasses full document relayout computation?
>
> Yes.  The thing that happens any time you change the DOM, resize the
> window, etc.  The hard part of implementing CSS, in many ways.

I understand well.
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 16:55:50 GMT

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