Re: [css3-layout] shorthand for slot construction

Giovanni Campagna wrote:
> 2009/10/19 Stephen Hay <>:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Giovanni Campagna
>> <> wrote:

>>>> [1]
>>>>>> While I see your point, I think we still need one grid layout system.
>>>>>> My opinion is that we should take whatever is necessary from flexbox
>>>>>> and css3-grid (only the 'gr' unit IMO), add them to template layout,
>>>>>> and keep that as a grid layout system. So then:
>>>>>> Template layout = grid layout system
>>>>>> Positioning = position things on and within the grid
>>>>>> Floats = float things within the grid
>>>>>> Table layout = for laying out tables :)
>>>>> The point is: what is template that cannot be done with tables and
>>>>> content adjusting?
>>>> So we will end up in recommending authors to use tables for
>>>> layout purposes, eh?
>>> Yeah, of course. The important part is: use tables, not <table>.
>> The way CSS tables are specified now, that's simply peanut butter in
>> chocolate as opposed to chocolate in peanut butter. CSS tables are
>> *meant* for tables in the tabular data sense, are they not?
> CSS Tables were introduced for HTML tables, but they're meant to
> visually represent any layout that can be thought as an intersection
> of rows and columns, although they have some feature really meant for
> semantic tables (like captions). Not the same as Grid, but similar,
> and conceptually equal to Template.

CSS tables cannot reproduce <table> layout.
colspan/rowspan and their flex behavior.
width=100% in tables is very far from width:100% in CSS.
(and <table>s have explicit flex units already like
<td width="1*">, btw) So vast majority of cases where we use
flow:"template" now are simply not reproducible by display:table
and even by <table>s.

It is completely unclear for me what is the purpose
of that ugly bunch of display:table|row|cell and friends we have
now in CSS. Very complex rules and the whole mechanism is
solving just few cases. All usable cases are covered by
simple flow:horizontal; layout.
In principle CSS:tables without flex units are dead.

>> If I
>> understand you correctly, you're proposing extending them to
>> accommodate the demands of page layout? If CSS tables already do what
>> they're supposed to for tables, why extend the meaning, and why not
>> simply create a separate model (which css3-layout seems to be) for a
>> page/element layout framework?
> CSS Tables are similar to the Flexible Box model *without any
> extension*. The only extension really needed to Tables to be a
> complete replacement for Flexible Box is something like box-flex-group
> (since even box-lines can be faked with single-row tables, multicol
> elements and block-flow), which could be added with the new normative
> automatic table layout.
> Template Layout could be layered above Tables, instead it uses a
> different layout system, which I'd like to change.

Ok, back to practical path:

Chapter: 3.5. flow:"template"

Please try to reproduce sample of layout defined there using either
CSS:tables or <table>s. You also can try to define this with 
box-flex-group of yours. Or even in XUL or any other LM system you know.

>>>> And what is that "content adjusting"?
>>> Changing the source document to achieve a particular layout, dropping
>>> semantics, adding more container elements, breaking logical order.


Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 16:43:48 UTC