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

Re: [css3-regions] miscellaneous comments (mostly editorial)

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:19:39 -0800
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCE25F5F.1A6A6%stearns@adobe.com>
On 11/14/12 3:48 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

>On 11/6/12 1:10 PM, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote:
>>  # <ident>
>>  #
>>  # The element is taken out of its parent's flow and placed into the
>>  # flow with the name Œ<ident>¹.
>>This sentence, as well as the the restriction that 'flow-into' doesn't
>>apply to ::before and ::after, tricks me into thinking that 'flow-into'
>>might be element-level manipulation and a decendant element of 'display:
>>none' can show up in a CSS Region when set with 'flex-into'.
>>s/element/box/ might be better (Really?) but if this is too apparent to
>>other readers, I can retract this comment.
>This is currently vexing me. Named flows *are* very much like
>element-level manipulation, particularly when you consider these
>The structure of a named flow is equivalent to the result
>   of moving the elements to a common parent. The visual formatting model
>   uses the relationships between elements in the named flow structure as
>   input, rather than the elements¹ original positions.
>I think this does imply that an element with a display:none ancestor
>pulled into a named flow by itself would be displayed in its region
>fragment(s). But I'm not sure whether that's a good result.

After a bit of thinking, I'm now sure that this is not a good result, and
the rest of the specification is clear that named flows are not equivalent
to DOM manipulation (particularly in how the 'flow-into' property does not
affect the CSS cascade). Descendant elements of 'display:none' should not
be visually formatted, even if they are pulled into a named flow.

So the first sentence I quote above is overreaching. What I was attempting
to do is cover anonymous box construction in cases where the sequence of
elements in a named flow would require something different than the
sequence in the normal flow (such as the "table * {flow-into:
table-content} declaration in Note 3).

What if I remove that sentence, changing the paragraph to:

Elements in a named flow are sequenced in
   document order. The visual formatting model
   uses the relationships between elements
in the named flow sequence as input,
rather than the elements' original positions.



Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 22:20:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:19 UTC