Re: [css3-layout] Drop it?

Right now, the problem is that, because there seems to be all these
competing layout specs, designers and developers aren't bothering to learn
any of them -- as they wait to see which one wins out. That can't be good.

Jeffrey

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jon Rimmer <jon.rimmer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed on the WG blog that a new working draft of the Template
> > Layout Module has been published. This lead me to wonder exactly what
> > is going on with this spec in relation to the other layout proposals
> > and what web browsers are actually intending to implement.
> >
> > My understanding, probably incomplete, is that Template Layout covers
> > similar ground to Grid Layout and Regions but that, despite predating
> > those specs by several years, it has not been implemented in a browser
> > and there is little prospect of that changing soon. Meanwhile,
> > experimental implementations of Grid Layout and Regions are
> > available/in-progress for IE and Webkit.
> >
> > I can understand that if people have invested effort into this module
> > they would not wish to see it die, but if it is not going to be
> > implemented, and has been supplanted by specs that are, then I would
> > question the value of the W3C continuing to invest editor resources
> > updating and publishing it. Would it not be better to retire it and
> > concentrate efforts on those other specs? It just seems a little
> > strange, and potentially misleading from an outside perspective, for
> > the WG to have a layout module that is competing at least partially
> > with other proposals, and which appears to have lingered for years in
> > draft status without any progress towards even an experimental
> > implementation.
>
> I agree; I highly doubt that Template Layout will receive any
> implementation, since Grid is more-or-less identical to it in
> functionality and is receiving a second experimental implementation.
> It's somewhat useful as a source of additional ideas, as it has
> several pieces of additional functionality not present in Grid, but
> this purpose would be equally served by a wiki page, with less chance
> of sending a confusing message to the community.
>
> ~TJ
>
>