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 23:30:33 -0400
Message-ID: <a2e2f817749395fa33f1a97e7d53670e.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: shelby@coolpage.com
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
More typos...

>> What I mean is that other layout modes offer a "flow", where a bunch
>> of carefully designed implicit constraints are used to relate boxes to
>> each other in various ways.  Positioned Layout instead gives the user
>> explicit control over the constraints, which opens up the possibility
>> of accidentally creating dependency cycles (which don't exist in the
>> flow-based models, if designed correctly).
>
> I dealt with this in another reply:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0401.html
>
>> Handling the explicit dependency cycles is complex enough.  Trying to
>> mix that with the implicit constraints of other layout flows would be
>> hellish.  As it is, I'll have to do some work to minimize the contact
>> that this layout mode has with others.
>
> Agreed.  I think perhaps I provided the solution at the link above.

Perhaps better explained my solution in my latest post:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0411.html

[snip]

>> We explicitly don't design the CSS language to be used in that manner.
>>  It certainly *can* be used in that way (there's absolutely nothing
>> wrong with preprocessors like LESS), but an argument that it's okay to
>> design something that's too complex for regular authors because you
>> can write libraries on top of it won't fly.
>
> I don't think my example above is less complex, and it is certainly more
> general.

I meant I don't see my generalized example as MORE complex.  The Flexbox
is more explicit about "this is a class of flexing sub-elements", but my
generalized example is pretty explicit about that too 'rsize:0.5' with
more orthogonal generality available for power users.
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 03:31:07 GMT

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