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

RE: [css3-regions][css3-gcpm] Plan B versus Plan A

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:37:38 +0100
Message-ID: <20271.1202.570255.533127@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Alex Mogilevsky:

 > ± I don't think there is room for two approaches. Basically. plan A and B
 > ± address the same problem space. I'd be happy to drop Plan B if Plan A
 > ± supports these:
 > ± 
 > ±   - element-free regions
 > ±   - auto-generation of regions
 > ±   - multicol-aware regions
 > ±   - page-aware regions
 > 
 > I don't understand why it is Plan B to begin with. Of course
 > auto-generating regions is good and it is perfectly reasonable that
 > before regions spec is finalized, we'll want to have a solid story
 > for using regions without script.

I'll be very happy when the Regions spec addresses the auto-generation
and the other bullet points above.

 > But there isn't anything that can be removed from css3-regions spec
 > because column selectors are introduced.

Plan B achieves the uses cases put forward without the need for, e.g.,
the 'flow-into' and 'flow-from' properties. In Plan B, the flow is
automatically configured in Plan B.

 > "Plan B" has no alternative to named flows

Named flow has been part of GCPM in the past:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-css3-gcpm-20070504/#named1

It was dropped due to lack of implementations, but can easily be
reintroduced.

 > I don't see how "Plan B" replaces "Plan A".

I've provided code for all the use cases put forward:

  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#regions

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 22:38:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT