- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:43:17 -0700
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/16/11 8:41 PM, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: >± -----Original Message----- >± From: Vincent Hardy [mailto:vhardy@adobe.com] >± Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 12:33 PM >± >± One clarification below. >± >± I was focusing on the applicability of 'content: from()' to inline >± elements when I wrote this but did not mean to say no to having use >cases >± for regions separate from paginated content (thanks Alan for pointing >out >± that my response was unclear). >± >± For example, you might want to have multiple columns of various widths >at >± the top of the document and then have the rest flow in a single div. >± >± Also, you could imaging having pull-out quotes throughout the document >± (even though this might require additional features, like the ability to >± have regions only take one item [here, a quote], from the flow at a >time). > >It is a tradeoff between a more narrow spec that is easier to implement >and broader one that is thought through beyond v.1... > >I believe we tend to put more narrow definition in normative spec >(required for all implementations) and suggest extended options in >non-normative language. > >For example: > > "content:from()" applies to block-level elements. UA may apply > that to inline elements; precise behavior is undefined in that > case, but is generally expected to be similar to that of inline > :before and :after pseudo-elements. > >It doesn't sounds very exact, and it isn't, but it includes non-normative >guidance for UAs willing to experiment with extended functionality... Understood. That would be an ok way to go about it for now, as far as I am concerned. I can add that proposal to the issue. Vincent
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 15:43:46 UTC