Alex Mogilevsky wrote, on December 11, 2007: > > I'm not quite convinced that we need separate properties for > > column breaking. If the use case is forcing a column break, then > > I think adding keywords to page-break-before and page-break-after > > should be sufficient. > I agree. I would be much easier to both understand and implement if > there was only one set of properties controlling breaks. And > column-break that is a page-break at the same time is a case that > is solvable but definitely not intuitive. > > There is only one column-break property that is not included in page-breaks: > > column-break:always > > what if instead we use > > page-break:column > > That would cover all use cases, wouldn't it? I assume you mean: page-break-before: column; page-break-after: column; Yes, I think it would cover all the use cases. It still doesn't look right, though -- a page and a column are two different things and setting column breaks on page properties makes me somewhat nervous. At the same time, I'm all for keeping the number of properties down. Hmm. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcomeReceived on Sunday, 22 February 2009 21:57:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT