- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 23:37:38 +0100
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Alex Mogilevsky: > ± I don't think there is room for two approaches. Basically. plan A and B > ± address the same problem space. I'd be happy to drop Plan B if Plan A > ± supports these: > ± > ± - element-free regions > ± - auto-generation of regions > ± - multicol-aware regions > ± - page-aware regions > > I don't understand why it is Plan B to begin with. Of course > auto-generating regions is good and it is perfectly reasonable that > before regions spec is finalized, we'll want to have a solid story > for using regions without script. I'll be very happy when the Regions spec addresses the auto-generation and the other bullet points above. > But there isn't anything that can be removed from css3-regions spec > because column selectors are introduced. Plan B achieves the uses cases put forward without the need for, e.g., the 'flow-into' and 'flow-from' properties. In Plan B, the flow is automatically configured in Plan B. > "Plan B" has no alternative to named flows Named flow has been part of GCPM in the past: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-css3-gcpm-20070504/#named1 It was dropped due to lack of implementations, but can easily be reintroduced. > I don't see how "Plan B" replaces "Plan A". I've provided code for all the use cases put forward: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-gcpm/#regions -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 22:38:17 UTC