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
>sentences:
>
>---
>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.
---

Thanks,

Alan

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:03 GMT