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

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

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:12:14 +0000
To: "shelby@coolpage.com" <shelby@coolpage.com>
CC: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>, "Alex Mogilevsky" <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E287814F6@TK5EX14MBXC115.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
So I ask for disambiguation between two answers and now I get five based
on this, that, the other thing and what if we put this here and that there...

What is your answer to Tab's question given the current design as you 
Understand it. I'm not asking what you think it should be, why, or what 
it would do if the spec did this other things or if that element was instead
before this other one, or if we expand this element like so...etc etc. 

What *is* your answer to Tab's question ?



> From: Shelby Moore [mailto:shelby@coolpage.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 5:44 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau
> Cc: "Håkon Wium Lie"; Alex Mogilevsky; Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [css3-multicol] new editor's draft
> 
> Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >> From: Shelby Moore
> >>
> >> So in my and I think the designer's mind, the correct result is:
> >>
> >> Inline overflow:
> >>  baz----------------------->
> >>  foo | foo | foo | bar | qux
> >>
> >> Block overflow:
> >>  baz------------->
> >>  foo | foo | foo |
> >>  bar | qux
> >>
> >> Now isn't that a lot more sane and consist?
> 
> Typo, 'consist' -> 'consistent'.
> 
> > I sure don't know since I can't tell what your answer is. I see two
> > different
> > renderings ?
> 
> One is for when overflow is in the inline direction, and the other is
> for
> when overflow is in the block direction.  Currently the spec only
> allows
> overflow in the inline direction, but I assume the spec will be
> generalized in the future, so I showed both cases.
> 
> > I'll assume, however, that in both cases you layout baz on top of all
> the
> > columns.
> 
> Note I had an error for the block overflow case, and I was writing my
> correction while you were replying:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0780.html
> 
> Actually it needs to be corrected more, as baz should only span the 2
> columns in the new column row:
> 
> Block overflow:
>  foo | foo | foo
>  baz----->
>  bar | qux
> 
> > How and why does is that correct per the designer's mind ? Why would
> he
> > expect all
> > the other elements to flow in source order except that one ?
> 
> The spanned element is also flowing in source order.
> 
> Pehaps what is confusing is in general foo, bar, and qux be spannable
> lines.
> 
> Let's assume instead with monospace font:
> 
> foo = fff ooo
> bar = bbb arr
> qux = qqq uxx
> 
> Inline overflow:
>  baz----------------------->
>  fff | fff | fff | bbb | qqq
>  ooo | ooo | ooo | arr | uxx
> 
> Block overflow:
>  fff | fff | fff
>  ooo | ooo | ooo
>  baz----->
>  bbb | qqq
>  arr | uxx
> 
> 
> Now assume bar = bar and is before baz.
> 
> Inline overflow:
>  fff | fff | fff | bar | uxx
>  baz----------------------->
>  ooo | ooo | ooo | qqq
> 
> Block overflow:
>  fff | fff | fff
>  ooo | ooo | ooo
>  baz----->
>  bar | uxx
>  qqq
> 
> 
> >> 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.
> >
> > Uh ? The element's style attribute says text-align:center.
> 
> I must have lost that from the original example. Apologies. Then yes it
> should be centered. In any case, I am adding the arrow to show the
> precise
> extent of the span.
> 
> > How do we
> > ignore
> > properties explicitly specified by the designer and claim the result
> > aligns
> > with his expectations ?
> 
> I would not argue for that. Was merely not seeing the center attribute.
> Let's try to keep examples simple, not need to include an extraneous
> center attribute as it is not germane/relevant to this. Sorry I just
> missed it.
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 01:12:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT