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

Re: [css3-multicol] Ambiguous term "constrained" for column-fill

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:26:20 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600906091426n736fca94l840ccb7b596dd27b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

> Also sprach Robert O'Callahan:
>  > The spec says "In continuous media, this property will only be consulted
> if
>  > the length of columns has been constrained. Otherwise, columns will will
>  > automatically be balanced."
>  >
>  > What exactly does it mean for column length to be constrained? Clearly
> an
>  > outer page height or outer column length can constrain the column
> length,
>  > but if the columns' content fits into a shorter length, are these
> columns
>  > actually "constrained"? For example, if I have a large page containing
>  > <div style="column-count:2; column-fill:auto;">Hello<br>Kitty</div>
>  > is the content balanced or is it all placed in the first column?
> Note that the sentence you quote starts with "in continous media". So,
> the sentence doesn't apply in the example you sketch.

Good point, but it still does, in the case where column sets are nested.

Now that you mention it, it actually seems wrong that a small column set
that isn't near a page break should behave differently in paged media than
continuous media.

  > Similar questions apply to "min-height", "height" and "max-height". Do
> they
>  > count as "constraining" column lengths, and are they "constraining"
> whenever
>  > they're specified, or only when the column element height is actually
>  > affected by those values?
> The question is: how do we place content in multicol elements when the
> column height is longer than it would be naturally. As such,
> "constrained" may not be the best word.
> How about this text:
>  In continuous media, this property will only be consulted if the
>   column height is set to be longer than it would naturally be from
>  its content. Otherwise, columns will automatically be balanced.

If this is the intent, I think a better name would be "column-overflow".

Your text is still a bit vague, though. Do you mean that UAs should compute
the height of the columns' content with balancing, and if that's greater
than the height of the columns element, then we consult
column-fill/column-overflow? I don't really like that behaviour; calculating
balance heights can be expensive, where "column-fill:auto" can be much
cheaper, and it would be good to be able to avoid the expensive stuff if
we're just going to fall back to the simple thing.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 21:26:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC