- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:15:15 -0800
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Alex Mogilevsky wrote: > > > The best motivation for less properties is to avoid dealing with > > conflicting values of page and column break properties, especially > > when some are "avoid" and some are not. > > CSS 2.1 describes how to resolve these conflicts: > > When these properties have values other than 'auto', the values > 'always', 'left', and 'right' take precedence over 'avoid'. > > > The best way to remove discomfort with less properties is probably > > to try to implement it. Second best is to describe in detail how > > all values of column-break-* and page-break-* interact and see if > > there are combinations that wouldn't be covered by > > "page-break-*:column". > > I think all use cases can be achieved with "page-break-*:column". The > question, at least for me, is whether I can stomach using a "page" > property to set column breaks. I think Alex's point is very important. Not only does it increase the number of properties and the complexity of their interactions, it's also going to create a cascading mess if we create a second set of properties for column breaking. If the use cases can all be solved with a 'column' value for page-break-*, then let's do that. Bonus for web authors: if they design for columns, then their printing results will be improved, too. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 19:16:00 UTC