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: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:44:51 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0904100544y4f3d0b08h9e04a21b2b18eb4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com> wrote:
> TJ said:
>> I would prefer we unify whether we phrase the values as
>> allow-* or avoid-*.
> Agreed.
>> This would that, for page-break-inside,
>> we'd either have "auto | avoid-page | avoid-turn |
>> avoid-column" (in ascending order of
>> strictness)
> You lost me on the increasing order of strictness.  In what way would 'avoid-column' be "more strict" than 'avoid-turn'?  And in what way would 'avoid-turn' be "more strict" than 'avoid-page'?

Sorry, that email was wrong.  In a later email I provide the correct
order, which has avoid-turn as less strict than avoid-page.

Avoid-column is *more* strict than avoid-page because we're assuming
that, if column breaks within a page are unacceptable to you, then
page breaks must be *really* bad.  Thus avoid-column implies
avoid-page, plus the additional multicol restriction.

> Or are you just referring to the fact that, for a given amount of content, restricting it to a column is less likely to succeed than restricting it to a pair of facing pages?  But then I would expect your ordered list to be "auto | avoid-turn | avoid-page | avoid-colunm"...?

Yup, that's the correct order.

> If you're suggesting there should be an inherent weighting of the values (that is, that the UA should somehow 'try harder' to satisfy one than the other), could you elaborate a bit further?

Nope, I was just providing a clarifying example (which turned out to
muddy the waters more).

Received on Friday, 10 April 2009 12:45:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:26 UTC