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

RE: [css3-writing-modes] a third option for implementing logical properties

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:50:12 +0000
To: koba Mobile2 <koba@antenna.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "howcome@opera.com" <howcome@opera.com>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E28776921@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of koba Mobile2
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 4:56 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org; howcome@opera.com
> Subject: Re: [css3-writing-modes] a third option for implementing
> logical properties
> Hakon
> > Implementation cost is one metric, but no the only one. For one,
> > there's also a memory cost. I presume you have implemented this so
> that
> > the logical propertie cascade and inherit separately? on a per-
> element
> > basis? And cannot be resolved until you know the computed value for
> > 'writing-mode'? If so, the memory use will be significant: ~35
> > property values for every element.
> The requests from end users or market is more important than
> any implementation cost or memory cost.
> Your opinion is an excuse from an incompetent implementor.

I do not think this kind of language is necessary or helpful. I suggest 
instead to ask Håkon why memory is such a concern for him. I suspect it 
has to do with Opera shipping millions of browsers on phones that are far
 more constrained than the first-generation iPhone, never mind a modern PC. 

More detailed and concrete background data on these constraints would
be interesting though.
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 02:50:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:40 UTC