- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:19:54 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] ± Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 1:09 PM ± ± 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 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 don't see how "Plan B" replaces "Plan A". It proposes a way to generate multiple pseudo-elements that can be used as regions. That's great and it's a challenge to get other proposals and compare. But there isn't anything that can be removed from css3-regions spec because column selectors are introduced. "Plan B" has no alternative to named flows, no alternative definition of how region styling works, no object model -- all that still needs to be defined somewhere, and css3-regions spec is the place. I that is what Alan means by having both A and B. I don't see how "Plan B" could make any sense without what you call "Plan A"... Alex
Received on Friday, 13 January 2012 00:04:54 UTC