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 13:43:29 -0400
Message-ID: <98f0837c698cab67dd26bc55e63940e5.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
> [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.


I am even getting myself confused now. Actually "overflow:block" is
orthogonal to "column-max-height". I guess what I meant to say is that
when "column-max-height" will be constrained by default, and width is set,
then there is no overflow, but yet still the rows of column height are
created if the content exceeds the "column-max-height".  In short,
overflow direction (the proposed "overflow:inline | block") and "column
row height" are orthogonal.


>
>
> ===============
> 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 17:43:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT