- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 16:26:10 -0700
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
- Cc: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Francois' proposal allows selectors that use, say, the reference >> combinator to still work appropriately. This means that you could >> potentially have an element in viewport A depend on the size of >> sibling viewport B. No cycles, but it doesn't give you *fully* >> parallel layout. Like I said, it still lets you resolve all the >> layouts of a given nesting level in parallel. >> > > That requires shared state because you're assuming we do something in terms > of levels which isn't really how layout works. If two blocks are positioned > and not nested we'll lay them out entirely in parallel. > > I don't want the spec requiring us to share style state between the layout > threads. That sounds pretty reasonable, I think. Does that mean we'd need to shut down other things too, like region flows between viewports? ~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 23:26:58 UTC