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

Re: [css3-regions] Comments on Editor's Draft

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:56:12 -0500
Message-ID: <4E3445BC.20809@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
On 26/07/2011 09:09, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Christoph Päper<christoph.paeper@crissov.de>  wrote:
>> Vincent Hardy wrote:
>>> I did not follow your example. What I meant was:
>>>
>>> #A, #B, #C {flow: myFlowName;}
>>> #B {content: from-flow(myFlowName);}
>>>
>>> creates a circular dependency.
>>
>> I know. You’re using here what I called “implicit, node-based DOM regions”.
>
> I assumed that the 'flow' property (or whatever it ends up being
> called) is only pushing content from the document into the flow (or
> content added to the document node via JavaScript), and NOT content
> moved in via CSS. So whatever content the A,B, and C elements have —
> without ever considering CSS 'content' — is moved into 'myFlowName', and
> concatenated together. Then it all flows into the content of the B
> element, and that does not change what the first rule is pushing. So no
> circular dependency. Or am I wrong?

I think that the thing you're overlooking here is that it's not the just 
the /content/ of B that's added to the myFlowName flow, it's B itself. 
Then B is told to contain myFlowName, yet B is /part/ of myFlowName. 
Hence the circular dependency.

That said, I haven't yet had time to consider Christoph's post on the 
matter.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 17:55:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT