- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:56:57 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>So, here are my promised questions and ideas: >> >>* Perhaps the OM should be more snapshottey, like all rendering data >>typically is? If you received some data from the OM, it's something >>that was only accurate at the time of querying. > > That's certainly a possibility. Are you suggesting making all of the live > bits of the current Regions OM static, or just some? I don't know :) Since the projection itself is transient, and thus the named flow content or existence is not stable, going with "here's what it looked like when you asked for it" -- or snapshots of information was the first thing I thought about. One additional thought that occurred to me is that perhaps the time has come for really trying to express a box model (that is, boxes as they are rendered on screen) with some sort of OM. This way, the named flow is just a collection of some objects that represent boxes, not DOM elements. This could be useful for a OM of a grid, for example, where there aren't any DOM elements to back the grid elements. >> >>* Maybe the OM should actually live on a CSSStyleDeclaration, rather >>than DOM element? This should help a bit with communicating the origin >>of this information. > > The flow-into and flow-from assignments are in the style declarations. The > rest of the Regions OM is attempting to provide additional information > that scripts need: > > 1. The ordered collection of content in a named flow > 2. The ordered chain of boxes for the content > 3. How the named flow content fits in the region chain > > I'm not sure how this information would live in a CSSStyleDeclaration. You're right. I think I imagined something like a view (window)-based interface, not document-based. document is DOM, view is rendering -- that type of thing. > >> >>* It seems that this general concept of projecting is somewhat similar >>to Shadow DOM insertion points. Are there opportunities to flesh it >>out as such? > > I think it would be a good exercise to try to rationalize named flows, > region chains and insertion points. But do you see insertion points ever > being extended to flow content from one point to another? In my reading of > Shadow DOM so far I see node-to-point matching, not rendering a node's > content fragmented over multiple insertion points. Right, the similarity is in projection, not flowing over multiple elements. > > Thanks, > > Alan >
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 16:57:27 UTC