- 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