- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:49:58 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Sam Weinig <sam@webkit.org>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > On 7/31/12 8:54 PM, "Elliott Sprehn" <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>... >> >>Does anyone have a suggestion as to how we could improve this part of the >>spec, while still leaving the option of what can be a CSS Region open? >> >>Is there any other "thing" besides CSSPseudoElement that you'd want to be >>a region? > > It could turn out that a CSSPseudoElement would be the only other > (prospective) JavaScript object that could turn into a CSS Region. There > are three types of CSS-generated boxes that have been considered as > possible CSS Region candidates so far: > > 1. Existing and future pseudo-elements (::before and ::after) > 2. Page template slots (@slot rules in > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page-template/ ) > 3. Grid template slots (from http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-layout/ ) > > None of these "things" have a JavaScript representation yet. It might turn > out that a single JavaScript object could cover all of these CSS-generated > boxes. But we don't know yet whether that's the case. As I wrote on webkit-dev, I think we should consider the approach of not having such a complex object model for the time being. We can always elaborate the object model in the future, but it's much more difficult to simply it if it turns out the complexity isn't worthwhile. Adam
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 06:51:04 UTC