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

RE: [css3-multicol] Intrinsic Widths of Multi-column elements (Take I)

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 22:04:40 +0000
To: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Peter Salas <psalas@microsoft.com>, Veljko Miljanic <veljkom@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E539856928411F9FCD3@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On the topic of today's discussion, here is how it is currently handled in IE10:

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Salas 
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:36 AM

What we do is pretty simple, and empirically seems to be very close to what Firefox does.

Column-count: auto, column-width:specified: produce a single column with the specified column width.

Column-count: specified, column-width:auto: min-content and max-content are computed by setting the used column width to the min-content and max-content widths of the content, respectively.

It's natural to want to "fill" columns as needed if column-count is auto, the height is constrained, and column-fill is auto, but I think spanning elements makes this ambiguous (imagine a spanning element with height:120% set -- how many columns do you stop at?  What if the spanning element is overflowing just because the MC is too narrow?).  If spanning elements didn't exist,  I would think this would be both feasible and desirable.  However, it's not reasonable to ignore spanning elements in this case because now layout is dependent on whether the width was determined through STF or not, which seems like a bad thing.
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 22:05:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT