- From: Ben Callahan <ben@heysparkbox.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:47:51 -0500
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADcYynRCyWx5w=e=My3QvWjbZSXH753dMv7TWg_2mKuPXCqQGA@mail.gmail.com>
Don't want to push too hard, but is the fact that someone *could* create an infinite loop a valid reason to not implement this kind of thing? I would be ultimately frustrated if, say, JavaScript didn't allow me to modify the counter inside a loop in the name of preventing bad code. Truth is, people can (and will) write bad code in any language... Just a thought, Ben On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Ben Callahan <ben@heysparkbox.com> wrote: > 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 >> > > -- * Ben Callahan * * Sparkbox, President * * * 411 East Fifth Street Dayton, OH 45402 office 937 401 0915 fax 877 253 6954 www.seesparkbox.com
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 16:48:19 UTC