-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CSS Layout API #224
Comments
Discussed at London f2f. We will reach out to someone to have a dedicated call slot to discuss this before next f2f. |
We discussed at London in a breakout. Had a bit of discussion; I'm going to try to review in more detail prior to our February 13th call and then make suggestions as to whether we need further review. |
Stream of consciousness: It's sort of odd that there's a |
Took a pretty detailed look at this on the plane ride over :-). Overall, I'm very excited to see this API--it really has the opportunity to be a game-changer. Starting with some nits (mostly editorial):
Other thoughts (in sequential order as I read the spec top-to-bottom): (-) (-) Example 1: Why the yeild at that particular spot (right after executing the map operation? Is the native Layout engine going to know how to handle an array of IntrinsicSizeRequests? Nit & open question: "The LayoutConstraints object has percentageInlineSize and percentageBlockSize attributes. These represent the size that a layout percentages should be resolved against while performing layout." The "a" is weird in the sentence structure, and I'm lost as to the meaning of how "layout percentages should be resolved against" said number means? A follow-up example might help? Will This sentence could really use a picture! "The LayoutEdgeSizes object represents the width in CSS pixels of an edge in each of the abstract dimensions (inlineStart, inlineEnd, blockStart, blockEnd)."
5.3 -- the On Generators--this model relies on the benevolent developer to call yield in order to achive the layout parallelism/asynchronicity desired. It doesn't seem quite right--the break-points should be more deterministic and based on API calls--hense Promises would seem better suited to the task. But putting that aside, the author cannot expect to write a generator function without a crisp understanding of how that generator function will be used (e.g., how the code that uses the generator's iterator will use it, when it will be expecting intermediate results (if any), and with what parameters to Example 6 (the JavaScript Layout engine) needs to come much earlier in the spec! It helps frame what is going on for the other examples. Example 6, Example 6, the The spec needs to be much crisper in defining what the The paragraph about In reflecting about the recursive nature of how a given pass through the In 5.6, why does the |
We will collaborate on what issues to open up relating to this feedback. |
@travisleithead to file substantive parts of his comment as issues on the spec based on discussion at tokyo f2f. |
Issue brought up in the CSSWG meeting: Using a generator here as a poor-man's async is bad. It's not actually an iterator; while Semantically, this should be an async function, with |
The generator vs. promise discussion at CSS is recorded in w3c/css-houdini-drafts#750. |
Looks like this was reviewed recently and good progress is being made. We don't have any additional feedback at this time, but would love to take a second look when further spec revisions have landed. Please keep us in the loop, and thanks for flying TAG! |
Hello TAG!
I'm requesting a TAG review of:
Further details (optional):
You should also know that...
This is an early review, so things might be difficult to understand and/or out of date in the specification and explainer. I'll ping this issue when large changes have been made / clarified, and when some initial code can be used in chromium.
We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: