W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [css3-multicol] test suite

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:37:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4C6B0F3A.9070303@inkedblade.net>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 08/17/2010 02:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com
> <mailto:howcome@opera.com>> wrote:
>
>     If we go with (b), I suggest, well, I don't suggest we do that.
>     Clipping makes more sense, no?
>
> I'm not convinced. CSS defaults to overflow:visible and generally
> clipping only occurs when the author requests it somehow.
>
> I also think that clipping column rules vertically would be less useful
> than letting them be the height of the columns, and I think that
> horizontal clipping would not be a particularly useful, so I favour not
> clipping.

I think that column rules should be the height of the column box.

I also think that content should be able to overflow the column
box, e.g. if we have a height-constrained column, then content
that is too tall should overflow the column box (and thus be taller
than the column rule). If we're balancing columns, then the column
boxes should the balanced height.

So, in some cases the column rule will be "clipped" with respect to
the content, and in some cases it will match the height of the content
and in some cases it will be shorter. But I think this makes sense
and gives a straightforward model for implementation. (Consider, for
example, a overly tall non-breakable float and text wrapped along
its side -- the bottom of the column box should be at the height
constraint, but the float would be overflowing.)

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 22:38:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT