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

Re: [css3-multicol] overflow and paging?

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:57:51 -0400
Message-ID: <91fc68cdf04f38ca342068df0692d5e2.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
Please don't forget/abandon my column suggestions. What happens next?

[css3-multicol] overflow and paging?
[css3-multicol] accessibility and UX
[css3-multicol] propose "column-width:minimum"

>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
>> wrote:
>>> [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.
>> This can be done with a "column-max-height:100%", assuming we define
>> percentages to be relative to the height of the multicol element.
> IMO, that should be the default, not 100vh, so that we can prevent by
> default those visually inconspicious flow order errors that I was
> describing.
>>  (If
>> you have padding/border/etc, you'll have to use a calc() to get the
>> value right.)
> Hmmm. I am thinking off-top-of-head that should automatically calc? IMO,
> we always want the column-height to fit within the outer container's clip
> by default, if for no other reason, because it is the only way to make
> accessibility work correctly by default.  Also to prevent those visually
> inconspicious flow order errors that I was describing.

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 15:58:29 UTC

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