- From: Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 01:57:31 +0200
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK4xKX=TBZhAsvTnECgf5oFK1nt3oHMUVSWNE6r-35uRDZG59Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Anyway, I don't think your proposal is doable because of infinite loops. > > > > Flexboxes also can lead to infinite loops, but we are seeing it in > > specification. :) > > No, they can't. In degenerate cases nested flexboxes can cause a > change to result in an exponential number of layouts, but it's > absolutely not a loop. > What the difference for the end users between 10K rearrange iterations and loops :) > This proposal, unfortunately, causes loops in precisely the same way > that :hover can cause loops, and browsers are loathe to repeat those > issues. > > ~TJ > I've suggested the fast solution before. Let's describe the definitions: 1. Frame - statement when browser has finished scrolling tick or layout rearrangement 2. In-view Statement - one of the following statements (ordered): all, partial, none, not none, not all, not partial For each of in-view statements select elements and apply css rules *once per frame*. So, that's all. No loops :) -- s0rr0w
Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 23:58:40 UTC