From: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:23:17 -0800

To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>

CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B1579537CDA58671@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:23:17 -0800

To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>

CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Message-ID: <CE2F61DA5FA23945A4EA99A212B1579537CDA58671@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>

I find this whole discussion focusing on finding the "right" algorithm rather than focusing on what would a user want. That is, what is most important to preserve as the size of the area in which columns are to go changes (more explicitly shrinks). My memory of the discussion that discussed column-count, column-width and column-gap was that they should adjust in a "reasonable" way to size changes. Therefore, I would expect this discussion to first focus on what is "reasonable" to expect when size changes and then to establish an algorithm to achieve that level of reasonability. I totally agree that keeping the number of columns when column-width is getting very narrow does not make sense. That is, it is not a reasonable fallback. I say, "fallback" because this is an overconstrained situation and the UA should have the opportunity of not honoring the authors requests when the specification says those requests do not make sense. For example, I would like to understand the use case for allowing column-widths to go to zero. That means that no content would show. If one is not allowed to set a column-width of zero, then the system should not give that result in a fall back situation. In the long term, it seems reasonable to have a property that sets the minimum column-width. But, in the short term, it would be reasonable to establish a default value for that property, say 5 characters or 10 characters. Yes, I know that that will cause some words to break in an arbitrary way, but that seems far less worse than losing any form of comprehensible text. I would then argue that the rules that reduce the number of columns be used when the minimum column-width is hit and not when zero is hit. I would interpret Sylvain's point as saying that the ratio of area used for column gaps to that used of column content should also be used to trigger a reduction in the number of columns. I do not, however, have a suggestion on how to use that ratio in the algorithm. So, lets first agree on what makes sense from the author (and viewer)'s point of view and then decide on the algorithm. Steve Zilles > -----Original Message----- > From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf > Of Sylvain Galineau > Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:23 PM > To: Håkon Wium Lie > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: RE: [css3-multicol] pseudo-algorithm > > > I've run a simulation to compare the two. > I know, I saw the earlier results. But it doesn't measure how much surface > goes to content vs. gap in the element. The exercise seems to assume that > the more columns, the better even though the result is a large increase > in the amount of the multicol element's surface dedicated to honoring > the gap. While it can be argued to be what the author wanted - the > column-width is auto but column-count and column-gap are explicitly > specified so the algorithm makes every effort to honor the author's > request - I'm not sure this is helpful as it means column-width:auto > might yield poorer result when, for instance, the user snaps/tiles > his window to half the screen space. > > In the results below, I go from > > 1200 to 0 in width. The resulting number of columns and their widths are > > shown in the comments to the right (with a "/" between > > them: > > > > width: 1200; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/95 revised > > 6/95 */ > > width: 1180; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/92 revised > > 6/92 */ > > width: 1160; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/89 revised > > 6/89 */ > > width: 1140; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/85 revised > > 6/85 */ > > width: 1120; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/82 revised > > 6/82 */ > > width: 1100; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/79 revised > > 6/79 */ > > width: 1080; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/75 revised > > 6/75 */ > > width: 1060; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/72 revised > > 6/72 */ > > width: 1040; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/69 revised > > 6/69 */ > > width: 1020; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/65 revised > > 6/65 */ > > width: 1000; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/62 revised > > 6/62 */ > > width: 980; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/59 revised > > 6/59 */ > > width: 960; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/55 revised > > 6/55 */ > > width: 940; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/52 revised > > 6/52 */ > > width: 920; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/49 revised > > 6/49 */ > > width: 900; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/45 revised > > 6/45 */ > > width: 880; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/42 revised > > 6/42 */ > > width: 860; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/39 revised > > 6/39 */ > > width: 840; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/35 revised > > 6/35 */ > > width: 820; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/32 revised > > 6/32 */ > > width: 800; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/29 revised > > 6/29 */ > > width: 780; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/25 revised > > 6/25 */ > > width: 760; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/22 revised > > 6/22 */ > > width: 740; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/19 revised > > 6/19 */ > > width: 720; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/15 revised > > 6/15 */ > > width: 700; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/12 revised > > 6/12 */ > > width: 680; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/9 revised 6/9 > > */ > > width: 660; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/5 revised 6/5 > > */ > > width: 640; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 6/2 revised 6/2 > > */ > > width: 620; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/61 revised > > 5/24 */ > > width: 600; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/56 revised > > 5/20 */ > > width: 580; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/51 revised > > 5/16 */ > > width: 560; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/46 revised > > 5/12 */ > > width: 540; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/41 revised > 5/8 > > */ > > width: 520; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/36 revised > 5/4 > > */ > > width: 500; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 4/31 revised > 5/0 > > */ > > width: 480; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/76 revised > > 4/26 */ > > width: 460; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/70 revised > > 4/21 */ > > width: 440; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/63 revised > > 4/16 */ > > width: 420; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/56 revised > > 4/11 */ > > width: 400; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/50 revised > 4/6 > > */ > > width: 380; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 3/43 revised > 4/1 > > */ > > width: 360; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/117 revised > > 3/36 */ > > width: 340; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/107 revised > > 3/30 */ > > width: 320; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/97 revised > > 3/23 */ > > width: 300; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/87 revised > > 3/16 */ > > width: 280; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/77 revised > > 3/10 */ > > width: 260; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/67 revised > 3/3 > > */ > > width: 240; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/240 revised > > 2/57 */ > > width: 220; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/220 revised > > 2/47 */ > > width: 200; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/200 revised > > 2/37 */ > > width: 180; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/180 revised > > 2/27 */ > > width: 160; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/160 revised > > 2/17 */ > > width: 140; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/140 revised > > 2/7 */ > > width: 120; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/120 revised > > 1/120 */ > > width: 100; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/100 revised > > 1/100 */ > > width: 80; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/80 revised > 1/80 > > */ > > width: 60; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/60 revised > 1/60 > > */ > > width: 40; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/40 revised > 1/40 > > */ > > width: 20; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/20 revised > 1/20 > > */ > > width: 0; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 1/0 revised 1/0 > */ > > > > In both cases, we will have to deal with very narrow colunmns. > That is a rather generous statement given cases like this: > > > width: 360; column-gap: 125; column-count: 6; /* current: 2/117 revised > > 3/36 */ > > The revised algorithm shrinks the column width by 70% ! In general, the > proposed > revision is worst as the number of columns goes down as the extra gap added > by > the new column is substracted from fewer columns. > > > > I doubt that there's much to gain. > I'm not worried about gaining right now. I'm worried about losing quite a > bit of > Content space for a poorer result. > > > > > However, I agree it's one of the options. Let's try list the options: > > > > 1) keep the current algorithm > > > > + easy > > - gives us abrupt changes (6 -> 4) in #columns > > I don't understand why abrupt changes in number of columns is an issue. The > solution > you propose can result in drastic changes in the amount of space available > for content. > Why isn't that a relevant factor ? > > > > > 2) revise line 24 (by adding 1) > > > > + no abrupt changes in #columns > > + more consistant column widths > > - more situations where columns are narrow > > See above. The result is less space available for content. > > > 3) always honor column-count > > > > + that'll teach'em > > + easy > > - more situationw where column widths are zero > > I'll assume this is here for completeness. > > > 4) go to 1 column as soon as column-width reaches zero > > > > + easy > > - abrupt chance > > So by abrupt you really mean, 'furthest from specified column-count'. > > > 5) try adjust column-gap as the width decreases > > > > + smooth, if we find the right formula > > - complex? > > - doesn't honor 'column-gap' > > Agree with those. My suggestion was to treat column-gap as a max-column- > gap. > I assume the content of the multicol is the most important part for the > author > and the user, so when available space is scarce column-gap always loses. > > > 6) introduce min-column-width (probably in combination with 2) > > > > + fewer narrow columns > > - would bring us back to last call > > - more complex to implement > > - there would still be lots of clipping > > Definitely more complex; #5 seems less complex and achieve some of this by > allowing column-gaps to shrink.Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 01:24:10 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:43 UTC
*