Re: [css3-exclusions] ordering exclusions by z-order

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Rossen Atanassov <
Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Thanks Rob, the proposed text sounds good and I’ll try to push it into the
> ED. Still, I am still puzzled by the insistence on this spec to be
> different and specify everything in terms of fragmentation.
>

Existing specs often fail to take account of the one-to-many relationship
of elements and boxes, and have had lots of ambiguities as a result, so
existing spec text is often not a good model to follow :-(. Some specs do
take account of multiple boxes where the problems became glaringly obvious
and editors were responsive, e.g. CSSOM View discusses multiple boxes in a
few places.

I don't think we should try to have the Fragmentation spec define how every
other spec should be modified to handle elements with multiple boxes. There
isn't a uniform way to do those modifications, so it would violate spec
modularity and make things very hard to understand since you'd constantly
be referring to CSS Fragmentation to understand how each spec actually
needs to work. E.g., I think Flexbox spec, not the Fragmentation spec,
should define any differences between pagination of flexboxes and other
kinds of boxes, and it should define how flexbox features should work in
the presence of pagination.

Rob
-- 
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]