Re: [css3-regions] iframe as content source

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.)


Anton Prowse

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