W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

[css-regions] Regions OM

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 09:51:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3zKnd+_131gHh5KOnqcQ_4NDGBMz-EGoswe=qeSfg0kA@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>
I finally had a chance to study the Regions spec. I have questions and ideas :)

The Regions spec makes some brave changes (not unlike Shadow DOM) to
current Web platform. I was trying to understand how some of these
changes (namely, the object model parts of the spec) fit into my
understanding of DOM.

Viewing simplistically, Regions suck content from one DOM element and
project (not unlike insertion points in Shadow DOM) it to one or more
other DOM elements, replacing their respective content.

The projection is controlled by CSS (unlike insertion points in Shadow
DOM), which in turn means that any change to the document or even
outside of document (media query reactions, for instance) could affect
the projection.

In OM world, the specifics of the projection are expressed as a
collection of NamedFlows, accessible from Document. Each NamedFlow
object allows retrieving the region chain, associated with it, as
essentially a sequence of Elements.

This is where I started experiencing discomfort. The Regions OM is
tied pretty tightly to DOM, from element-bound interfaces to using
ranges. This is dissonant with the nature of projection, communicating
a bit more stability to the user of the API than there really is. For
example, even the fact of existence of a particular NamedFlow instance
is not guaranteed when one attempts to hold a reference to it.

It appears that it suffers from the same problem as Ranges -- a
rendering concept that is being shoehorned into a DOM concept.

So, here are my promised questions and ideas:

* Perhaps the OM should be more snapshottey, like all rendering data
typically is? If you received some data from the OM, it's something
that was only accurate at the time of querying.

* Maybe the OM should actually live on a CSSStyleDeclaration, rather
than DOM element? This should help a bit with communicating the origin
of this information.

* It seems that this general concept of projecting is somewhat similar
to Shadow DOM insertion points. Are there opportunities to flesh it
out as such?

:DG<
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 16:51:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT