- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:30:50 -0400
- To: shelby@coolpage.com
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style@w3.org
[snip] >> I don't think we need a new keyword - the behavior we want is >> already specifiable with the vh unit, which represent 1% of the >> viewport's height. So you could have something like >> "column-max-height: 100vh" as the default value. It would otherwise >> accept any length, with a value of 'auto' meaning "no maximum height". > > > Very nice generalization. Thank you for spending the effort. [snip] On further thought, this won't work correctly. The column-max-height needs to be constrained to its outer container's block direction dimension constraint (aka height), not to the viewport. I revert to my original proposal but adopt your "-max", "column-max-height:constrain" as the default. One can override the default to set other values, such as 'auto' and length units, where 'auto' is what we have now when width (inline direction) is constrained. Also note that "overflow:block" is not necessary when only width (inline direction) is contrained. =============== Minor rant: why in CSS do we have to say "width (aka inline direction)"? Why couldn't we reuse the same term? Is width never in the inline direction? Then why do we say that "column-width" always applies to the "inline direction"? Should it be named "column-inline-length" instead? This is making the discussion and teaching of CSS columns very difficult and verbose. Can we fix this?
Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 17:31:17 UTC