Re: layout idea

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Brad Kemper <> wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2009, at 12:39 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
>>> No. We don't flow contents *into* cells. We *absolutely position*
>>> contents to align with edges of particular cells.
>> Three kinds of positioning:
>> (1) table-position on a display:table-cell.  The object actually becomes
>> the cell at that position.  A pseudo-element can't refer to this cell
>> position when this is done.
>> (2) table-position on a normal flow object like a block.  The object is
>> placed *into* the cell at that position.  If no cell exists at that
>> position, then an anonymous one gets made.  A pseudo element can be used to
>> style this cell.
>> (3) position:absolute with grid units.  Provides out of flow alignment to
>> cells in tables.
> Please note that I am not totally against #2, above. Just somewhat against
> it, because I think it confuses the understanding of the rest of it,
> complicates things that would otherwise be simpler (the automatic wrapping
> of cells into new rows), and is unnecessary for the goals of source-order
> independence. I think if you had #1 above, plus row-spans/col-spans, it
> would satisfy the vast majority of layout needs, and also be a great boon to
> creating table-like structures out of non-table HTML structures (like
> definition lists, or headline/paragraph combinations).
> #3 is a "nice-to-have" for abs-pos items to align with table-display-based
> layouts. #2 just seems extraneous. Is it so that you can put a group of
> things, like paragraphs, into a cell without actually having a wrapper of
> some sort (like <DIV class="article">) around them first?

Yes, exactly.  Without #2, you have to explicitly add wrappers to your
HTML, and you have to *change* those wrappers if you want to alter the
layout significantly.  The first part is unpalatable and should be
avoided if possible, and the second is simply ridiculous for a layout

As an author, it would be a significant impediment if I didn't have
#2.  I could get around it by manually altering my source, as previous
noted, but that shouldn't be necessary.


Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 16:56:30 UTC