Re: CSS Regions considered harmful

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