W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-regions] iframe as content source

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:33:04 -0500
Message-ID: <4E2B3E10.8090006@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
On 14/07/2011 22:34, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> Issue 5
> Having a special case for treatment of iframe box model may be seen
> as inconsistency in definition of named flows. Also, it may be
> desirable to add an iframe or object to a named flow as a replaced
> element (which would require a wrapping element with this
> definition). This difference in behavior may be acceptable, or it
> could be addressed by providing an option to use content of an
> element in named flow vs. using the whole element.
> For example, there could be two 'flow-into' properties:
> 1)<iframe style="flow-into:flow1">  --  add iframe to flow as a
> replaced element
> 2)<iframe style="flow-content-into:flow1">  --  add content of the
> iframe to flow
> Alternatively, there can be a separate property to specify what to
> add to flow, with the same effect:
> 1)<iframe style="flow-into:flow1; flow-source-type:element">  --  add
> iframe to flow as a replaced element
> 2)<iframe style="flow-into:flow1; flow-source-type:content">  --  add
> content of the iframe to flow
> Note that adding element vs. content option would add interesting
> possibilities, such as a choice of adding the whole table to flow vs.
> contributing table's rows into a merged table.

This is along the same lines that I was thinking in [1] when I raised a 
more general concern about otherwise having to use "> *" to funnel an 
element's content (but not the element itself) into a named flow.

(One of the reasons for my uneasiness is that I can't think of any other 
example of good CSS usage that would routinely require the use of "> *". 
  In the cases that I can recall having seen in the wild, the use of "> 
*" is an indication that the author's approach to achieving whatever it 
is that they're trying to achieve is not a good one.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0158.html

Anton Prowse
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 21:33:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:02 UTC