W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css3-regions][css3-gcpm] Plan B versus Plan A

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:09:23 +0100
Message-ID: <20239.19459.815410.353004@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alan Stearns wrote:

 > As far as regions are concerned, my opinion is that we should pursue both
 > Plan A (css3-regions) and Plan B (column selector styling).

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

 > It will be terrifically useful to be able to style individual
 > columns, but there are some layouts where placing regions directly
 > will be much more straightforward.

Could you give some examples? 

 > Multicolumn is structured to begin with (same-width, same-gutter columns
 > placed side by side) but becomes more freeform with column selector styling.


 > Regions are intrinsically freeform but can gain structure through careful
 > styling. It seems to me that designs that adhere most closely to a standard
 > newspaper or book layout may be more easily expressed in multicol. But
 > wilder magazine layouts could require quite a lot of complex column
 > overrides, and may be easier to comprehend as regions.

I'll let others judge the readability, but in the examples I've worked
out the Plan B code is consistently more compact, require fewer new
properties, and and fulfill the requirements listed above. 

 > One feature that Plan B does not address is the named flow.


It can easily be put back in, if needed. 

 > I agree that there needs to be a way to define regions without using
 > structural elements, and that auto-generation and pagination need to be
 > addressed. 

Then we're on the same page, so to say. With these proposals in place,
regions could progress quickly.

 > The question is where and when, and whether the current scope of
 > css3-regions is too minimal. For auto-generation, I think what we have now
 > is insufficient. Regions should be able to use auto height to display all of
 > a flow's contents. But that's just the barest minimum - other, more
 > sophisticated auto-generation mechanisms should follow.
 > I'm envisioning a road map that includes css3-regions, css3-positioning
 > css3-pagination, a more comprehensive way of creating pseudo-elements, and a
 > way of defining and selecting page templates that uses all of CSS to create
 > complex layouts based on page contents. How do we divide up this work into
 > manageable modules? Do we have to create one mega-spec that covers
 > everything, or can we agree on useful smaller steps to take?

I suggest we discuss requirements/functionality/syntax/use-cases first,
then we can deal with splitting them into modules later, if necessary. 

              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 21:12:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:09 UTC