W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Initial values for widows and orphans

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:14:41 +1100
Cc: "www-style@gtalbot.org" <www-style@gtalbot.org>, www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <C9E604DF-E8FC-49A5-87C0-DE8DEFDD009B@apple.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On 13/12/2012, at 11:11 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>> On 13/12/2012, at 10:21 AM, Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>>> I do not understand why Webkit can not implement orphans and widows
>>> according to CSS2.1 specification.
>>> I do not understand why you say that it would break existing content.
>> Because these properties have implied behaviour on content, even when
>> they were never specified by the author. Now, after years, our implementation
>> turns them on and things change. I doubt any author will understand
>> why. Whether or not it is a positive change is important, but not really
>> our decision to make.
> Yup.  The initial value was chosen on the assumption that the behavior
> change wouldn't break things, because it's a nice default.
> However, if you think that it'll cause content to break, then we
> should obviously just be more conservative about things and set the
> initial value to 1 (no effect) instead.

I would accept that, although I still like 'auto' because it does
open the door for the implementation to do cooler stuff, like realise
that a widow here is ok because it will avoid a massive orphan break
at the bottom the page.

(We have no plans to do something like that)

Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 00:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:06 UTC