- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 12:56:12 -0500
- To: "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
On 26/07/2011 09:09, Brad Kemper wrote: > On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Christoph Päper<christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: >> Vincent Hardy wrote: >>> I did not follow your example. What I meant was: >>> >>> #A, #B, #C {flow: myFlowName;} >>> #B {content: from-flow(myFlowName);} >>> >>> creates a circular dependency. >> >> I know. You’re using here what I called “implicit, node-based DOM regions”. > > I assumed that the 'flow' property (or whatever it ends up being > called) is only pushing content from the document into the flow (or > content added to the document node via JavaScript), and NOT content > moved in via CSS. So whatever content the A,B, and C elements have — > without ever considering CSS 'content' — is moved into 'myFlowName', and > concatenated together. Then it all flows into the content of the B > element, and that does not change what the first rule is pushing. So no > circular dependency. Or am I wrong? I think that the thing you're overlooking here is that it's not the just the /content/ of B that's added to the myFlowName flow, it's B itself. Then B is told to contain myFlowName, yet B is /part/ of myFlowName. Hence the circular dependency. That said, I haven't yet had time to consider Christoph's post on the matter. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 17:55:56 UTC