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

Re: [css3-multicol] new editor's draft

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:04:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4CC36A0E.6080308@inkedblade.net>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: shelby@coolpage.com, www-style@w3.org
On 10/23/2010 05:13 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>   >  >  I've been tempted to introduce the term "multicol box" to mean "the
>   >  >  content box(es) of a multicol element". That would be slightly more
>   >  >  accurate. However, I think the current text works.
>   >
>   >  What is the difference between the "content box(es)" and the "column
>   >  box(es)"? I can understand the multi-col element has its own content box
>   >  which contains column box(es), but how does a single mult-col element get
>   >  multiple content boxes?
> Pagination. One mulitcol element can result in (say) three mulicol
> boxes, one per page.

I'm not sure what you need to refer to here, but we could consider
adding a concept of multicol row boxes that wrap each row of column

>   >  Also why are technical terms not in italic, so I know when I am reading a
>   >  term which has a definition, e.g. column row height or column box.
> Technical terms are marked as<dfn>  elements the first time used, and
> explained. Thereafter, their use in the text should conform with the
> definition but they are not called out. This is consistent with the
> other CSS specs.
>   >  Another reason I find CSS specs very hard to parse, because I can't
>   >  quickly see where are the defined terms.
> Would you really want to see the definition of all terms always?
> Here's a random sequence from CSS 2.1:
>     All levels of CSS - level 1, level 2, and any future levels - use
>     the same core syntax. This allows UAs to parse (though not
>     completely understand) style sheets written in levels of CSS that
>     did not exist at the time the UAs were created. Designers can use
>     this feature to create style sheets that work with older user
>     agents, while also exercising the possibilities of the latest
>     levels of CSS.
> About half the words in that text could point to some techincal
> definition. I'm not sure the extra effort in writing the spec would be
> worth it.

We /could/ use <i> around each technical term per HTML5, but
for some very common ones like "content box" and "block box"
etc., this would turn fully half of many sentences italic.

Maybe if we did that only to terms defined in that particular
module, it would be okay (possibly with an exception for CSS3
Box, which defines most of those very common ones).

Received on Saturday, 23 October 2010 23:05:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:40 UTC