W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: The :min-width/:max-width pseudo-classes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:26:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDNVowHDioyNeoZaZd9_CT9OnbpW9HXJYEHNEWFPRTWpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Cc: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Francois' proposal allows selectors that use, say, the reference
>> combinator to still work appropriately.  This means that you could
>> potentially have an element in viewport A depend on the size of
>> sibling viewport B.  No cycles, but it doesn't give you *fully*
>> parallel layout.  Like I said, it still lets you resolve all the
>> layouts of a given nesting level in parallel.
>>
>
> That requires shared state because you're assuming we do something in terms
> of levels which isn't really how layout works. If two blocks are positioned
> and not nested we'll lay them out entirely in parallel.
>
> I don't want the spec requiring us to share style state between the layout
> threads.

That sounds pretty reasonable, I think.

Does that mean we'd need to shut down other things too, like region
flows between viewports?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 23:26:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:07 GMT