Re: [css3-regions] Comments on Editor's Draft

Anton Prowse (2011-08-21):
> On 06/08/2011 17:35, Christoph Päper wrote:
>>   foo {flow: bar;}
>>   baz {content: flow-from(bar);
>>     /* position, size etc. */}
>>   foo {flow: bar;}
>>   baz {content: none;} /* usually unnecessary */
>>   @region quuz {
>>        content: flow-from(bar);
>>     /* position, size etc. */}
> You want to send the name flow to a region whose selector is "quuz", but what does quuz match if not a DOM element?

“quuz” is just the name of a region, not a selector, hence like all at-rules it does not match anything. (Pseudo elements, on the other hand, match content that is not marked up, and pseudo classes match nodes by their implicit properties.) 

You actually only need named regions to improve cascading. Otherwise

  @region foo, bar {width: 100%; content: flow-from(baz);}
  @region foo {height: 200px;}
  @region bar {height: 400px;}

could be written

  @region {width: 100%; height: 200px; content: flow-from(baz);}
  @region {width: 100%; height: 400px; content: flow-from(baz);}

instead, resulting in two regions, too.

> Is it a grid cell, a column?

Grid cells should be regions that are box children of a grid.
Columns, in the CSS3-Col sense, could be modeled as regions, too, but with a node box parent.

> Do you intend that the matching thing always be an anonymous "external" box that is independent of the content it contains?


> This would seem to make regions a lot less useful, though.

I haven’t seen any actual usecase that required an arbitrary named flow being bound to a node-based region. Anyhow, in my mental model of flows and regions, nodes can become roots for regions, too, but only with use of ‘display’ or ‘position’ (and maybe some other properties) values and they would only contain anonymous flows.

I intend to write this down in a more readable format sometime this week.

Received on Monday, 29 August 2011 17:59:14 UTC