W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [css-regions]

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 05:04:05 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D0940532.21923%stearns@adobe.com>
On 11/20/14, 8:27 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>In section 3.2.1 of CSS Regions [1], it says you can't have a element
>create a flow and also consume the same flow, and it gives this example:
>#id {
>  flow-into: foolish;
>  flow-from: foolish;
>would move the #id element to a "foolish" named flow,
> and try to make the #id element a CSS Region for the "foolish" named
> flow. The "foolish" named flow would then contain its own region,
>creating a cycle. So the #id element does not become a CSS
> Region.
>However, I think that restriction should only be the case when the
>keyword "contents" is not in the 'flow-from'. It doesn't say that
>anywhere that I could find, but it would be useful to do something like
>#id {
>  flow-into: significant  content;
>  flow-from:significant;
>.some-empty-things {flow-from:significant;}
>That way, the element matching #id could have a large amount of content
>in the natural markup, but it's height could be limited so that it flowed
>through the original container AND the additional regions. There would be
>no problem with a cycle to break.

Yes, this should work - this example is one we discussed when we added the
content keyword. In your case, the ’significant’ named flow does not
actually contain the #id element itself, so there is no cycle to break. So
the cycle detection section should be technically correct, but I can call
this particular case out to make it much more clear.



Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 05:04:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:26 UTC