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

Re: Orphan control in CSS

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:35:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMCRKiJfq7=2gYQKbO+wBK+_E1Ea2kVL5FkNSpb7N1cBR0sNkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
"Also, in print you may want both types of orphans, with a different
number" - good point, I had not thought that the second implementation
I want for screen might also make it into paged media.

OK then, what about, as Lea suggests:

orphan-words: 2;

The number being the minimum number of words that must appear on the
new-line if a new-line is required.

e.g.,

This is a heading that doesn't wrap

This is a heading that has an
orphan

This is a heading that wraps with
orphan control



On 5 January 2012 13:32, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> Le 05/01/2012 14:27, Matthew Wilcox a écrit :
>
>> yes, you're right - however Orphans only applies to paged media. So is
>> there anything to stop the screen media implementation doing the
>> sensible thing and using the second definition (which is the only
>> definition relevent to screen)?
>
>
> I think this is a bad idea. No other CSS property (that I know of) change
> their meaning depending on the media type. (Besides being irrelevant/not
> applying.)
>
> Re-using the same property name will not make it happen faster anyway.
>
> Also, in print you may want both types of orphans, with a different number.
>
> --
> Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:36:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT