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

Re: [css-gcpm] String-set issues

From: Shinyu Murakami <murakami@vivliostyle.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:57:10 +0900
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <20141125125707.F610.3B6C55AB@vivliostyle.com>
Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote on 2014/11/25 5:43:58
> Running elements are limited in that they only move elements, rather
> than (possibly) copy them. In many cases this would require duplicate
> markup.
> 
> I've found at least seven proposals for moving document content into
> page margin boxes (here with ultra-minimal examples)
> 
> A. string-set and string(), which as we've mentioned are implemented
> by Prince and AntennaHouse, and have been in GCPM3 forever:
> 
> h1 { string-set: foo content() }
> @top { content: string(foo) }
> 
> 
> B.  Running elements, which have been implemented by Prince (not sure about AH):
> 
> h1 { position: running(foo) }
> @top { content: element(foo) }
> 
> 
> C.  Another syntax proposed by Bert Bos:
> 
> h1 { running: foo }
> h1:running { /* format copied element independent of original */ }
> @top { content: element(foo) }
> 
> 
> D.  flow, which has also been implemented by Prince:
> 
> h1 { flow: static(foo) }
> @top { content: flow(foo) }
> 
> 
> E.  Brad Kemper's proposal from this thread:
> 
> h1 { copy-into: foo }
> @top { content: foo }
> 
> 
> F.  GCPM4 proposal using CSS Regions:
> 
> h1 { flow-into: foo; flow-policy: persist }
> @top { flow-from: foo }
> 
> Some of these proposals, like running elements and flow, don't support
> copying. I think a minimal set of requirements is
> 
> [1] Retain internal structure of element (like italic inside head, or MathML)
> [2] Avoid duplicate markup
> [3] Provide mechanism for inserting commonly-used non-document
> content, like dates and filenames
> [4] Allow independent styling of copied content
> [5] Provide way of selecting which instance of element is used on a
> given page (as first/start/last/first-except tries to do)


Very nice list!

AntennaHouse, I worked for, implemented A and B as that was defined 
in GCPM3 draft. Both A and B are useful for many cases, but not perfect.

I think the GCPM4 proposal using CSS Regions is teh best, because it 
can use same mechanism and syntax with CSS Regions that is already
implemented in browsers (or there are polyfills) and this regions
mechanism is neccessary for making CSS powerful enough for layout 
complex pages.


> 
> Bert has lots of ideas at
> http://www.w3.org/Style/2013/paged-media-tasks#running-headers-and-footers-there-are-tw


Thanks,


--
Shinyu Murakami
http://vivliostyle.com
murakami@vivliostyle.com
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 03:57:46 UTC

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