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

Re: [css3-multicol] unknown available width and shrink-to-fit

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:40:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5096FCD0.6050604@kozea.fr>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: bert@w3.org, fantasai@inkedblade.net, Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com, www-style@w3.org
Le 04/11/2012 23:56, Håkon Wium Lie a écrit :
> [...] the term
> "availablble-width" is used differently in CSS 2.1, so it may be
> better to find a new name. If we choose 'used-width' we get this definition:
>
>    used-width: if the used width of the multi-column element has
>      not been determined when the 'column-count' and 'column-width' must
>      be determined (e.g., if it is floating with a 'width' of 'auto' as
>      per CSS 2.1 section 10.3.5) this variable is unknown, otherwise it
>      is the same as the used width of the multi-column element.
>
> Also, I'd like to replace the somewhat fuzzy parenthesis with a
> specific list of items in CSS 2.1 that causes this variable to be
> unknown.

That would be great.


> It seems that the differences you get is due to
>
>   - [...]
>   - testing the shrink-to-fit algorithm  (which isn't descibed in the multicol spec)

Yes, this is exactly my point. There is no interop on shrink-to-fit. If 
we define shrink-to-fit elsewhere, then some parts of the algorithm 
become redundant and should be removed.


> Here are some tests that only tests what's described in the multicol
> spec itself.
>
>   http://people.opera.com/howcome/2012/tests/multicol.html#pseudo-algorithm
>
> For these, I get interoperability between three shipping
> implementations: IE, Opera, Prince.

I believe that this behavior is unchanged with my proposal. This is all 
about how we split up specs.


Cheers,
-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 23:40:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT