W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [css3-multicol] page-break-inside and columns

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:53:03 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0904091253q5d77dadqcd3e19c384961d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>At the moment, all of the options that have been brought up form a
>>strict hierarchy.  If you allow page breaks, you automatically allow
>>facing-page breaks and column breaks.  If you allow facing-page breaks
>>(but avoid other page breaks), you automatically allow column breaks.
> OK, fair enough.
>
>> So, at the moment, we don't need to support multiple flags.
>> I have no idea if there's a useful break mode that
>> doesn't fit into this strict hierarchy.  Can you think of any?
> Murakami-san's proposed avoid-turn is one such suggestion
> on the thread. Where does it fit in the hierarchy ?
> Would Hakon's avoid-all value include avoid-turn as well ?

Sorry, I was referring to that when I talked about facing-breaks (that
is, a page break across facing pages).  A facing-break comes between
column breaks and page breaks - it's more serious than a column break,
but less serious than a (general) page break.

In avoidance terms, you have, in increasing order of strictness: auto,
avoid-turn, avoid-page, avoid-column, avoid-all.  At the moment
avoid-all is identical with avoid-column, because there are only three
types of break opportunities we've current identified, and
avoid-column implies the other two, but it may in the future change.

~TJ

(Man, I keep confusing myself by switching between avoid-* and allow-*
syntax.  When you include the concept of facing pages, avoid-page and
allow-page are *not* parallels.  In the allow-* syntax, the choices in
order are: auto, allow-page, allow-facing, allow-column, allow-none.
This time "auto" and "allow-page" are identical at the moment.  Let's
just stick to the avoid-* syntax.  It feels clearer.)
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 19:53:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:46:58 GMT