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

Re: [css3-page] float Rules for Pagination into Varying-Width Pages

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:09:30 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9EDA1A.3090501@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 20/09/2011 04:31, Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 03:55:17PM -0700, fantasai wrote:
>> On 09/19/2011 01:33 PM, Peter Moulder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:14:35AM -0700, fantasai wrote:
>
>>>>    * Continuations of boxes on a previous page must start at the top
>>>>      of the page.  If this results in multiple shrinkwrapped floats
>>>>      side-by-side that would otherwise be staggered (if they were not
>>>>      continuations), [then shrink proportionally or overflow].
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't understand this condition [...]
>>
>> Normally, if there are two floats side by side and they don't both fit,
>> the second one will move down until it clears the first. You never get
>> an overflow condition because of side-by-side floats.
>>
>> However, if we require that a float that was split across pages begin at
>> the top of the page (which I think we should), then that escape hatch is
>> not available on subsequent pages. This could result in either overflow
>> or overlap between floats, which is not normally possible.
>
> I'll note that this proposed change of rules for float widths isn't technically
> necessary: without it, the rules of section 9.5.1 of CSS 2.1 would just mean
> that the second float would be pushed down as far as necessary for it to fit on
> all pages on which it occurs.
>
> Ignoring implementation issues, this would actually be preferable for authors:
> no-one wants a float to overflow off the edge of a page on a subsequent page.

I agree with this.  I wouldn't want floats to be calculated according to 
dimensions on one page and then look bad on the continuing page; I 
imagine that the first impression of authors if they saw that would be 
that it were a UA bug.

For me, this issue is even clearer in the case of regions rather than 
pages.  I really don't think we want overlap or overflow.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 14:08:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT