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

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

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:06:17 -0700
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA534FBE.D2B9%vhardy@adobe.com>
Hi Christoph,

From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de<mailto:christoph.paeper@crissov.de>>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:30:21 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org<mailto:www-style@w3.org> Style" <www-style@w3.org<mailto:www-style@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [css3-regions] Comments on Editor's Draft

Vincent Hardy (2011-07-13):

So if the flow contains A, B and C, we could represent the flow as: A -> B -> C
if B now gets content from the flow, that means that it would potentially need to layout itself. That does not work and we should mention in the spec that it is an error.

This would not be the case if named flows were only possible with explicit, selector-based “CSS regions” (and not with implicit, node-based “DOM regions”), whether they be anonymous,

  A, B, C {content: to(B), none;}
  @region {content: from(B); foo: bar;}

or named regions,

  A, B, C {content: flow(B), none;}
  @region B {foo: bar;}

>> I did not follow your example. What I meant was:

#A, #B, #C {
    flow: myFlowName;

#B {
    content: from-flow(myFlowName);

creates a circular dependency.

Could you clarify what 'A', 'B' and 'C' are in the examples you gave and how that resolves the problem?

Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 00:07:01 UTC

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