On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > > I disagree with the "is an underlying primitive" statement. You can > make it into one by rebuilding other things on top of it, but that > doesn't mean it currently is one. > > If primitive is a sticky term, would you agree though that it is a relevant and potentially useful/very reusable "layer"? > > In general, it seems like things that use those two abilities will > > become more common over time, rather than less. We don't want to have > > to be the gatekeepers that define every new bit of functionality > > before authors can use it - that just means CSS continues to grow, and > > do it slowly, forever. We should be exposing this or something like > > it, so authors can invent their own abilities and we can clean up > > afterwards with simpler, more efficient sugar on top of it for common > > things. > > Agreed, but I think the underlying primitives we expose to do that > should actually be more like primitives -- they shouldn't involve > things like implicit multi-pass layout (which isn't in the things > you cite that are built on top of them). > > -David > So what would they be if we'd like to be able to specify some "things" for layout purposes in CSSOM? Anonoymous block that isn't part of a layout? Is that still high or now too low? -- Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 19:37:39 UTC