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

Re: [css-regions] Regions OM

From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:56:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CADh5Ky3X_6C939Rct1G5StC80oLABKSNYLVr2BWa0_RmaYXauA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

>>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.
>
> That's certainly a possibility. Are you suggesting making all of the live
> bits of the current Regions OM static, or just some?

I don't know :)

Since the projection itself is transient, and thus the named flow
content or existence is not stable, going with "here's what it looked
like when you asked for it" -- or snapshots of information was the
first thing I thought about.

One additional thought that occurred to me is that perhaps the time
has come for really trying to express a box model (that is, boxes as
they are rendered on screen) with some sort of OM.

This way, the named flow is just a collection of some objects that
represent boxes, not DOM elements. This could be useful for a OM of a
grid, for example, where there aren't any DOM elements to back the
grid elements.

>>
>>* 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.
>
> The flow-into and flow-from assignments are in the style declarations. The
> rest of the Regions OM is attempting to provide additional information
> that scripts need:
>
> 1. The ordered collection of content in a named flow
> 2. The ordered chain of boxes for the content
> 3. How the named flow content fits in the region chain
>
> I'm not sure how this information would live in a CSSStyleDeclaration.

You're right. I think I imagined something like a view (window)-based
interface, not document-based. document is DOM, view is rendering --
that type of thing.

>
>>
>>* 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?
>
> I think it would be a good exercise to try to rationalize named flows,
> region chains and insertion points. But do you see insertion points ever
> being extended to flow content from one point to another? In my reading of
> Shadow DOM so far I see node-to-point matching, not rendering a node's
> content fragmented over multiple insertion points.

Right, the similarity is in projection, not flowing over multiple elements.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 16:57:27 GMT

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