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

Re: Thoughts about columns-width

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:18:14 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912180818u40b0c8f6g871f4b0c8ba6b360@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 4:36 AM, Daniel Glazman
> <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>
>> - if the number of lenths is lower than the number of columns, then
>>  each length passed matches the corresponding column in writing
>>  direction order, the last length passed also applying to the remaining
>>  columns
>
> Is that better than having the passed lengths form a repetition pattern?

I think yes, at least somewhat.  Repeating patterns obviously would be
good for, say, having columns of alternating widths.  But I think it
more likely that a common case will be the first column being a
particular width and the rest being something different (probably
smaller).

Since excess widths are ignored, you can always simulate a repetition
by just repeating your pattern manually a couple times (you could do
this if the situation was reversed and you wanted a *non*-repeating
pattern as well, but I think the result of underestimating and ending
up with more columns than widths is better if they then all just
assume the width of the last one rather than repeating the start of
the pattern over again).

~TJ
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 16:19:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:47:12 GMT