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

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

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:19:54 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412DE0386@TK5EX14MBXC214.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
± Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:09 PM
± 
± Alan Stearns wrote:
± 
±  > As far as regions are concerned, my opinion is that we should pursue
± both  > Plan A (css3-regions) and Plan B (column selector styling).
± 
± 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 don't see how "Plan B" replaces "Plan A". It proposes a way to generate multiple pseudo-elements that can be used as regions. That's great and it's a challenge to get other proposals and compare.

But there isn't anything that can be removed from css3-regions spec because column selectors are introduced. "Plan B" has no alternative to named flows, no alternative definition of how region styling works, no object model -- all that still needs to be defined somewhere, and css3-regions spec is the place.

I that is what Alan means by having both A and B. I don't see how "Plan B" could make any sense without what you call "Plan A"...

Alex 
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 00:04:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT