- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:55:16 -0400
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> On 10/19/10 12:14 PM, Shelby Moore wrote: >> How does it "complicate" orthogonal algorithms? For example, a visual >> bounds test walks the element tree > > No UA I'm aware of walks the element tree here; all would operate on the > box model instead... Oic, they are using a hierarchal optimization. But there are ways to optimize the general case, such as dirty lists. Correct? >> If pagination algorithm has been designed to be sufficiently orthogonal, >> then afaics it should also not be touched for this proposal. Are you >> concerned or aware that some layout engines may not be coded with >> sufficiently orthogonal (non-spaghetti) design? > > "All of them", I would expect. So the issue is may require a rewrite (refactor) of too much code that is too legacy-twined? So not easy to get there from here. Thanks for the frank assessment. I may be of assistance on a re-start next year. >> I do not know what you mean by "incremental update"? Is that an >> algorithm >> that bypasses full document relayout computation? > > Yes. The thing that happens any time you change the DOM, resize the > window, etc. The hard part of implementing CSS, in many ways. I understand well.
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 16:55:50 UTC