- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:14:50 -0400
- To: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
[snip] > 2) It appears easy when it only applies to absolute positioning Agreed. > (although > implementation will not be that easy - it will complicate calculating > visual bounds, incremental update, pagination and more...). How does it "complicate" orthogonal algorithms? For example, a visual bounds test walks the element tree and buildings bounding box from rectange unions, thus afaics is not concerned with nor aware of (i.e. orthogonal to) the positioning method is employed. 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? I do not know what you mean by "incremental update"? Is that an algorithm that bypasses full document relayout computation? Specifics? > But will it be > enough? If such a major concept is added to layout model, wouldn't it be > expected to extend to in-flow content (which of course would be much > harder, adding circular size dependencies)? Is that a problem if we restrict that they are only non-float siblings or parent hierarchy, which are not cols or rows elements? See my prior post today: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0372.html
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 16:15:24 UTC