- From: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:32:41 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 12:55 AM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css3-break] Empty fragmentainers > We've removed a bunch of the text (from "and no content-empty" > to the end of the sentence), since it's actually redundant with the next sentence. Take a look and let us know if this seems to be clear enough now. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#forced-breaks It's clearer, but not necessarily better :) Since now there's only a recommendation about "Break as few times as possible" (SHOULD? MAY?) it will make things harder to test with regard to interoperability. In a scenario with one small region and one big region, should content that doesn't fit in the small region create an empty region and be flowed in the big one? How about if we have 3 small regions and a big one? How about 10 small regions and one big region? Past which point the recommendation to not overflow the region takes precedence over "break as few times as possible"? Hope it makes sense :) m.
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 16:33:16 UTC