Re: Calling for a massive revamp of Paged Media and GCPM

Also sprach Daniel Glazman:

 > > How would you recode this example?
 > >
 > >    @page { @top-center { content: element(header) }}
 > >    @page :left { @top-left { content: counter(page) }}
 > >    @page :right { @top-right { content: counter(page) }}
 > >    header { position: running(header) }
 > 
 > First, I would entirely drop the top-center and friends. The 16 areas
 > defined by the spec are ugly hacks to replace the fact we could not
 > lay out correctly special areas in a page. This is not the case
 > any more, we have flexbox, grids and slots. In the future, not a
 > single piece of software will use @top-center and friends if we have
 > better.
 > 
 > Runnings are about the same. If I consider this code taken from the GCPM
 > spec:
 > 
 >    title { position: running(header) }
 >    @page { @top-center {
 >      content: element(header) }
 >    }
 > 
 > it mixes content, position, a word "running" that nobody will understand
 > as what it is. It still relies on the 16 margin boxes that are a weak,
 > unmaintainable positioning scheme. That scheme is entirely unable to
 > express the headers or footers of the first Word or OOo document in my
 > home directory. And I don't even mention the call to element(header)
 > is a really bad way of saying the @top-center contents come from the
 > 'header' flow. Your proposal is about flows, let's use flows.
 > 
 > Flows are easier to specify, more consistent to what people are used it
 > in DTP software. Sorry Håkon but running() is really a hack, it's an
 > attempt to do flows w/o adding a minimal number of new
 > properties/notation and it's totally suboptimal.

So, what would you code like for the example in question?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 20:04:07 UTC