W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css3-regions] Unforced break recommendations

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:05:38 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA66A8E2.F4BA%vhardy@adobe.com>
Hi Alan,


> I suppose this could be [css3-page] or [css3-multicol] as well. I've been
> working on test cases for how content gets split across region
>boundaries in
> the absence of explicit breaks. I think that splitting content across
> region, column or page boundaries should be substantially (or entirely)
>the
> same for unforced breaks.

[VH] Yes, I agree. The 'natural' breaking rules should be the same in all
cases.

> There is some guidance in the spec about the expected behavior. For
> instance, in 2.3.2 (Allowed region breaks) it's suggested that it's OK to
> split between line boxes in a block container box. And 2.3.4 says "Avoid
> breaking inside a replaced element," though that's just a recommendation.

[VH] This wording is taken from the CSS 2.1 specification and adapted to
account for regions. There is a standing issue that all this wording
should be made common between multi-column, paged media and CSS 2.1.

> It makes perfect sense to me to avoid splitting replaced elements - an
>image
> or video should be displayed intact if at all possible. But there may
>also
> be non-replaced elements that are best left intact. For example, I'm not
> sure it makes sense to split a button that contains multiple line boxes
> across a region (or column or page) boundary.

[VH] As you and I have discussed informally, and as you pointed out form
elements are not replaced elements. So as we understand it, they can be
split between column boxes, pages or regions. I agree this is surprising.

> Should the spec go into more detail about unforced break preferences? Are
> there any other non-replaced elements that are best left intact? The spec
> only makes recommendations, so there won't be testcases for this. Should
>it
> matter if one implementation chooses to allow buttons to split across
> boundaries but another implementation pushes the whole button past the
> boundary?

[VH] I think it matters and I think it is as important to specify this as
it was to specify that replaced content should not be split. I think we
should make a proposal and present it to the group and account for
feedback we may get in response to this email thread.


Cheers,
Vincent.
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 16:06:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT