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

Re: Positioned Layout proposal

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:09:39 -0400
Message-ID: <b181efc213811b1988ebea9dd9d31a9f.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> On 10/19/10 12:31 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/19/10 12:14 PM, Shelby Moore wrote:
>>> 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.
> I should expand on this.  The fact that they are thus coded is a
> _feature_ not a bug.

Agreed that pagination needs hooks into layout. I was writing about the
orthogonality of those hooks, meaning certain changes to specs do not
require any changes to those hooks.

>  Any sort of sane pagination algorithm not only
> depends on the layout but also modifies the layout (for a simple
> example, the heights of auto-height blocks end up depending on where on
> the page the top content edge of the block appears).  As such it needs
> to hook into the layout process, and complications to the layout model
> also complicate pagination.

My point is that as long as the proposed spec only changes the position
and size of their containing block within the box model, they the relative
position and size constraint solver is orthogonal to those pagination,
overflow, etc hooks.
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2010 13:10:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:39 UTC