- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:52:57 -0400
- To: shelby@coolpage.com
- Cc: "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "David Storey" <dstorey@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Note this thread just forked in an earlier discussion, and I think I made perhaps a more coherent and concise summary there: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0280.html >> On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:33 AM, "Shelby Moore" <shelby@coolpage.com> >> wrote: >> >>> In this case, wouldn't it be much more predictable if multi-col >>> containers >>> always limit their column height to any blocking constraint of their >>> outer >>> containers, up to but not including the viewport or frame? >> >> No, because that is not how overflow and height normally interact. > > > Incorrect. > > I am not proposing the the flowed content height be limited, but rather > only the "column row height". > > Realize that the number of rows of columns will still be allowed to flow > in the block direction in compliance with the fact that the multi-col > element is "height:auto" (aka block unconstrained). > > The only thing that my proposed "column-height:constrain" as the default > affects is the row height of the columns, not the actual height of the > overflow. > > I realize that is very confusing if only expressed in words. [snip]
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 09:53:24 UTC