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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:55:57 -0700
Message-ID: <4A2EE87D.7040204@inkedblade.net>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
CC: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>     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.

This would break a lot of use cases. Currently we assume that if you
set a fixed height, this is "constrained", and column balancing doesn't
happen unless requested. I don't want to change that behavior here, it's
useful.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 22:56:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:18 GMT