- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 16:22:02 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/30/2014 07:51 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > fantasai wrote: >>Edward O'Connor wrote: >>> 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? Named Flows would cover 'flow-into' and 'flow-from', which is a mechanism for chaining boxes. Regions would cover how disjoint chained boxes are processed and laid out. Fragmentation explains how content is broken, but not how auto-sized fragmentainers are sized/positioned, etc. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 00:22:33 UTC