Re: [css-regions] responsive and semantic use of named flows

On 1/25/14, 2:51 AM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

>Wouldn't this be more naturally expressed by making the <aside> be some
>kind of positioned float or exclusion, positioned below the fold, that
>the <article>s all flow around?

That depends on how you evaluate ‘natural’. As François points out, in
order to invent something new that would handle this particular case for
floats, you would need to add a float feature that expressed this intent:

---
Float past the bottom of the view, unless the content doesn’t fit the
view. In that case, float to the bottom of the content.
---

I’m not sure that float value has a ‘natural’ name. And I don’t think that
extending floats for this particular case would be the right decision. Is
this particular case important enough to extend floats further? What about
variations on slightly similar layouts that would require additional float
values with requirements and clauses like the definition above? How do we
decide which fragmentation effects are worth new float values?

The example uses named flows and static positioning to achieve the effect.
I think allowing designers to experiment with fragmentation using named
flows and the positioning tools already built in to CSS is preferable to
extending floats to handle each case that’s described. When we see
consistent and widespread use of a particular pattern, then we should
consider adding some float functionality to cover a common case.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Saturday, 25 January 2014 14:18:13 UTC