- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:51:25 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:58 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> On 01/28/2014 11:23 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote: >> Hi HÃ¥kon, >> >> You wrote: >> >>> My primary point is that we should not abuse HTML tags as this is >>> harmful to web semantics. That's problems #1 >> >> Agreed. >> >>> and it should, alone, be enough to stop the [CSS Regions] >>> specification from progressing. >> >> Disagreed. Regions currently relies on dummy elements because the WG has >> not made progress on defining features for explicitly creating boxes in >> CSS. Once we have such features, content can be flowed into them with >> the properties defined in CSS Regions. >> >> Instead of applying stop energy to a spec that defines necessary >> features (how to flow content through boxes of different sizes), we >> should instead prioritize making progress on defining new box creation >> mechanisms so that authors won't have to resort to dummy elements. > > If the spec were pared down to defining how to flow content through > boxes of different sizes, maybe some of these objections would go > away. Like CSS Fragmentation, it would not be usable on its own, but > would be relied on by other modules (Named Flows, Overflow Fragments, > Page Templates, Template Slots, etc.) that are attempting to solve > the region-creation problem. Adobe and Microsoft could work on it in > the context of Named Flows, Mozilla and Opera could work on it in the > context of Overflow Fragments, and nobody would object to progressing > "a spec that defines necessary features (how to flow content through > boxes of different sizes)". That sounds reasonable on the face of it, but doesn't CSS Fragmentation do that already? What parts of Regions would not be contained in a "named flows" spec?
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2014 15:51:56 UTC