Re: CSS Regions considered harmful (was: [css-regions] issue 16858 redux)

On 1/23/14, 10:13 AM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

>On Thursday 2014-01-23 12:58 +0100, Johannes Wilm wrote:
>> I contacted the Firefox list or IRC a while back and asked for advice on
>>  how to implement something like
>> http://sourcefabric.github.io/BookJS/using the fragment-overflow
>> specification. The answer was that this isn't
>> possible, because the fragment spec requires all the fragments to be
>> siblings of oneanother.
>
>What is it that isn't possible?
>
>> This seems to significantly limit the use cases of
>> fragment-overflow. If you should decide to go for the fragment-overflow
>> specification instead, I would strongly recommend that you extend it to
>>at
>> least cover all the current use cases of CSS Regions.
>
>Just because Regions can do it doesn't mean it's a feature that
>belongs in the fragmentation system.  I think regions is addressing
>use cases by reordering fragments that ought to be addressed by the
>layout model rather than by the fragmentation model.  Addressing
>layout features in the layout model allows the layout model to be
>designed for performant in-order layout to address its use cases.
>This, in turn, doesn't require that existing layout systems,
>designed for layout in content order, end up being used by regions
>out-of-order in a way that's either going to be slow or buggy
>(depending on which sacrifices the regions spec makes).

Named flow content is in DOM order, and region chains always render in DOM
order.

Flexbox allows reordering, and Grid will too. Floats re-order rendering,
as does abspos. So I’m not entirely clear on what in-order constraints
you’re referring to with ‘existing layout systems’ or what out-of-order
characteristics you think are in regions.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Thursday, 23 January 2014 18:24:31 UTC