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

RE: [css3-multicol] pseudo-algorithm

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:53:14 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AB5FABF@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
[Brad Kemper:]
> OK, I at least understand your point of view better, but I'm not 100%
> convinced it is the best solution (but less sure of my own position).

Whether it is a better solution or not depends on the requirements you
set, and how you rank them. I don't think anyone is arguing that  
column-width:auto should not mean 'adjust column widths'. What I am 
definitely arguing - and Steve also, I think - is that column-width:auto
cannot be assumed to mean the author cares so little about the content 
that it can disappear entirely. That seems very undesirable, including 
for the non-text/alternative/exotic scenarios you don't want to preclude.

Things are not that much better either if there is content but it's unusable
in overconstrained cases. I don't care how much consensus there is that
authors should set column-width. That they should is no good reason to make
the auto option too poor to use in practice. (Or so poor one has to use
media queries)

> If you have a multicol object with some forced column breaks in it, then
> it is pretty similar to having a single-row table with table-spacing. But
> better, because you can handle overflow and abspos better. But I kind of
> like that a table won't ever get narrower than all of its table-spacing.

Sorry, not sure I follow you...
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 17:53:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT