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

Re: [css3-flexbox] anonymous flexbox children

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:49:45 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimoF9LvQ6LC1kfLrAxFJnaFpYdfzCzt6ZUGdczV@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 20:23, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
>> I guess it is fine with me if for the purposes of the spec we mention
>> "box tree" if it helps to get clear definitions but it doesn't really
>> need to exist in implementation... If analogy with anonymous blocks
>> in text is any good, those definitely don’t need to be implemented
>> while being fully compliant with spec behavior.
>
> I've always been rather fascinated by this idea.  Can an implementation
> claim to be compliant if it produces the same rendering in all cases as if
> it did implement these "invisible" abstractions, even if it actually doesn't
> implement them?  I think this should be made clear in the spec.

Yup, and in fact I depend on this in places; it allows me to describe
algorithms that are inefficient but clear and simple to understand,
and depend on implementations to actually implement a more complex and
performant algorithm.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 17:52:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT