- From: Ben Callahan <ben@heysparkbox.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:32:59 -0500
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADcYynQUBi24o7rEn6B61Q0K=g4_debf8faesKrcKAcZNstybg@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for the explanation guys. I'll keep thinking on this in hopes that we can solve it somehow. Cheers, b On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM, François REMY < francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > | ... > | > > <thinking about a "sticky post" on the ML / on a blog somewhere about the > general pitfalls of CSS or why your favorite feature may not be doable in > CSS right now; the property-selector dependency would certainly make the > cut for that> > > > > | It's possible in the future that we may be able to add a more > | restricted form of layout that can have this kind of interdependency > | (its simplicity might make cycle detection + breaking more tractable), > | but it won't allow arbitrary constraints. > > To be more concrete, I've an (unproposed) proposal that would enable > authors to create "local viewports" (display: viewport). One of the goals > of local viewports will be to allow those kinds of usage. However, I agree > with Tab that what you're going to win at one side, you're going to loose > it on the other one: to introduce more freedom to the author, we introduce > more constraints for the layout engine; there doesn't exist a "perfect" > solution to this problem. > > Specifically, the current layout algorithms are made such that the layout > of the children affect the layout of the parent; if we want the layout of > the children to depend on the size of the parent, we need the size of the > parent to be independant of the layout of the children. From a performance > point of view, the case where the layout of the parent doesn't depend on > the layout of the children is very interesting (particulary in the case of > ininitely scrollable lists), which is one of the other motivations for this > proposal. > > > Best regards, > François >
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 16:33:42 UTC