W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2011

Re: [css3-regions][css3-exclusions][css3-gcpm] Plan B

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:28:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDS8GTvwg1qNt37sT=Z+KTAHiT=-F=H59eo1oMVfVVrZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Tab wrote:
>
>  > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#exclusions
>  > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#regions
>  > >
>  > > For comparison purposes, I refer to the GCPM-based proposal as Plan B,
>  > > and the set of proposals [9][10][11] championed by Microsoft and Adobe
>  > > as "Plan A".
>  >
>  > While I generally prefer the pseudo-element approach, basing it off of
>  > multicol has some issues.  Namely, it's incompatible with new layout
>  > modes like Flexbox and Grid.
>
> That's a fair point. In general, it should be possible to specify any
> declarations on columns/regions. E.g.:
>
>  article::region(1) {
>    display: flexbox;
>  }
>
> But not all combinations make sense.
>
> Could you describe a use case where you'd want to combine
> regions/exclusions with flexbox?

That's not quite what I'm talking about.  I mean that the element
*hosting* the regions can't (currently) be a Flexbox or a Grid, so you
can't use those positioning schemes for it.

For example, in the canonical regions example, the current Regions
spec uses Grid to line up the regions.  You use some relatively
complicated combination of multicol, column spans, and page floats to
achieve the same thing.  I find the former *much* more readable and
easy to use, but currently it's impossible to do so.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2011 23:29:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:47 GMT