W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [CSS21] page-break-inside

From: Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:27:31 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200804171927.31136.kde@carewolf.com>

On Wednesday 16 April 2008, Bert Bos wrote:
> Fantasai proposes to not inherit 'page-break-inside', but instead treat
> the default value of 'auto' as meaning "neither increase nor decrease
> the strength" and to interpret 'avoid' as setting a certain medium
> level of strength. We don't have a good analog of that in CSS yet, but
> there is some resemblance with 'text-decoration' and 'display: none',
> in that once they are set, descendants cannot get rid of their effect.
>
I see a potential for 3 values of page-break-inside in CSS 3; avoid, allow and 
auto.

Allow means adding zero to the avoid strength, avoid means adding one, and 
auto means the UA determining. In auto the UA _should_ treat tables and 
elements with border as avoid, and the rest as allow.

The only difference is that is no longer possible to add preferable 
page-break-points inside a page-break-inside:avoid element, which is contrary 
to the current specification. 

However the effect could be handled by page-break-after: always or a slightly 
weaker 'prefer' keyword.

> Indeed, I think it is a small problem. But why should we introduce a
> small problem and forbid a possible use when the other solution,
> inheritance, has no such problem, is just as extensible, and,
> furthermore, has been the rule since 1998?
>
I don't think any browsers has a fully compliant implementation of 
page-break-inside:avoid yet(maybe Opera?), even the one in KHTML is closer to 
the proposal than the current CSS 2.1 spec. Even if one or two browsers have, 
it doesn't have enough implementations that web developers have been able to 
use or rely on it yet.

Regards
`Allan
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 17:28:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:05 GMT