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

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

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:52:12 -0400
Message-ID: <e14dbf8285b90d16f47d9e9c51b7d3ea.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Alex Mogilevsky:
>  > I think it is
>  >
>  > (D)
>  > foo | foo | foo | bar
>  >       baz
>  > qux
>  >
>  > (as in your option A, but "qux" should be in the first column)
> We agree on the model, I believe. Are you ok with specifying this
> behaviour in css3-multicol?

I read the whole discussion, and I am leaning towards I don't agree with
any of it. :D

Just because we are unwilling to span the columns that precede an element,
we are causing ugly results that have near 0 semantic correlation (more
like aliasing noise) to what the designer intended.

One thing I avoid to do is design something in parts, that requires it be
designed as a whole and correctly from the beginning. Sometimes we need to
not take shortcuts to rush out implementation.

'foo' is really per Håkon's original example, a set of words and thus

So in my and I think the designer's mind, the correct result is:

Inline overflow:
 foo | foo | foo | bar | qux

Block overflow:
 foo | foo | foo |
 bar | qux

Now isn't that a lot more sane and consist?

Note it is incorrect to assume baz is centered, that is why I drew it as I
did on the left side with an arrow showing its extent.
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 2010 23:52:39 UTC

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