- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:13:11 -0700
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:19 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 31/07/2013 20:39, Brad Kemper a ¨¦crit : >> On Jul 31, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: >>> Even this has its limitations. For example, the third fragment of >>> an element could not be a table while everything else is inline, >>> that just doesn¡¯t make sense. >> >> I can't see why not. I mean, that particular example sounds unlikely, >> but not undoable. I would certainly hope a fragment could be a block >> on one page (say, the first page) and a grid item or table cell on >> the next page. I hope I could set the body element to use different >> grid templates (or different row/column definitions) on different >> pages; that would be extremely useful. > > Just thinking about implementing this makes me cry inside. Sorry, but it seems to me like one of the most important features to go with the feature of having different :first, :right, and :left pages: having different layouts for each. You see it all the time in magazines. Is it that much worse than flowing overflow content from one display type to another in regions? I see now that regions is currently limited to block containers (the examples seem to include table elements, so perhaps 'block' here means non-inline). Maybe not every display type needs to be supported, but I can certainly see strong use cases for flowing between blocks and grid areas. Thus, content that started out as nodes of a block would overflow into another region or page, where it would be wrapped in a pseudo-element that could be styled as a grid item, if that second region or page had display:grid on it.
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 17:13:45 UTC