- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:35:24 +0100
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
Brad Kemper wrote: > > I'm concerned about complexity, though. I fear that authors may face > > combinatorial explosions when trying to create page templates for > > various-sized devices, pages with one figure, two figures, pages with > > one flow and one figure, pages with two flows with one figure, two > > flows with three figures etc. etc. > > There's probably no getting around that though, if authors want > that power. I can imagine doing Web page templates first, then > mobile, then tablet. Or maybe mobile first. The alternative approach is to attach layout information to elements. For example, instead of using page templates (or media queries) to say: if the page is wider than x, use y columns, else use z columns one specifes the optimal width of columns on the element: article { columns: 12em } Or, instead of picking a template that says: use me if you have an article with only text and pull-quote elements; display the first pull-quote between the first two columns, 30% down from the top, and discard all the other pullquotes one attaches information to each pull-quote element .pull-quote { float me between column 1 and column 2, 30% down from the top, delete me if I crash into another float; } Page templates are top-down; element-based layouts are bottom-up. Page templates are 5-year plans; element-based layouts are town markets. Page templates are grand castles waiting to be filled; element-based layouts are organically grown villages. We may need both. But I believe more designs than not can be achived with the element-based approach. And I'm afraid of unfinished castles. -h&kon (village guy)
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 06:36:04 UTC