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: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:38:09 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928412E1A5EB@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
± Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:09 PM
± 
± 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 guess we'll keep calling these "plan A" and "plan B", although neither is a complete plan and there is nothing mutually exclusive about them...

As I noted before, here is a set of use cases for paged view that regions are designed to support: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/page-view 

I tried to include alternative solutions based on "plan B", but towards the bottom of the use case list I am really not sure how to do that.

Hakon, do you think alternative options are possible in more cases than I saw? Can you suggest something to compare?

Alex
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 19:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:49 GMT