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

Re: [css3-multicol] overflow and paging?

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:30:50 -0400
Message-ID: <b9a3e74dcc0ba51742e17f023e26c594.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: shelby@coolpage.com
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style@w3.org

>>  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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:39 UTC