- From: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:44:25 -0400
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADxXqOxPL--13KpKKe=2zqW0cuFXL392oxFKr+Gp+9rR0bvhkQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > I'd be reluctant to change the syntax; we have two interoperable > shipping implementations that support the current GCPM syntax. > > http://www.wiumlie.no/2014/tests/books/footnotes-ah.pdf > http://www.wiumlie.no/2014/tests/books/footnotes-pr.pdf > http://books.spec.whatwg.org/#footnotes > > That's certainly a concern. But the implementations are not quite interoperable now. Prince uses @footnotes, and AntennaHouse (and GCPM) use @footnote. The various float values also differ (things like prince-column-inline-footnote). If a different syntax turns out to have advantages, perhaps the existing implementations could map the old syntax to the new. But we are getting ahead of ourselves! One motivation for an alternate approach is that the current syntax is hard to extend. The example of two footnote streams in CSS Books [1] uses float: footnote and @footnote for one of the streams, and @area and flow: area() for the other stream. The regions syntax feels like it will be easier to extend to many situations--footnotes, sidenotes, pull quotes, and all sorts of things. Best regards, Dave [1] http://books.spec.whatwg.org/#flowing-content-into-named-areas:-area%28%29
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 23:44:52 UTC