W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-break] Clarify definition of widow and orphans.

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:29:41 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-335868256-1507739365-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `Clarify definition of widow and orphans.`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: We want the interpretation to be the first option in issue 1832`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Clarify definition of widow and orphans.<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1823<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I realized there was ambig. in the definition. [reads from spec]<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> (this is probably related to how line-clamp needs to work)<br>
&lt;dael> florian: The reaosn I think this is ambig is that line boxes in a block container isn't clear if they must be direct children or indirect descendants.  I don't think it intends indirect. If it did if you had a div with two paragraphs with widows and you'd end up glueing them together.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think we clarify that we only mean direct children.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: THe usual intent is to set on a page box, correct?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: No, this is about paragraphs, not page boxes.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: The definion is about block containers with line boxes. You must have a min number of line boxes in each fragment. I thought that was clear, but if it's not we can clarify. This is only line boxes. And property inherits. If there's a block in your block that's a child. But you can break at the boundary.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: You can always say break after at a block. Usually that's not an issue because a block inside a block is sep. content.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Intent is closer to v1 in the example.<br>
&lt;dael> dauwhe: v2 in the example would be bad.<br>
&lt;dael> dauwhe: abs v1<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think there are rare cases where you might want v2 but you should control that seperately.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: If there is a case where you want v2 you would structure html differently.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: prob<br>
&lt;dael> dauwhe: Or the thing you're trying to fix would not be a widow.<br>
&lt;fantasai> s/a child/a child to which widows can also apply/<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think we can address the rarity of v2 another time if we can resolve on meaning v1. An editor can change or I send a PR.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I'm not certain an edit is req but that may be because I"m interp in a particular way.<br>
&lt;dael> Bert: If florian finds it's unclear it prob is. I didn't imagine it in another way, but if florian reads it another way it needs clarification<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: florian you'll do a PR to fix the wording?<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Yes<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Okay, we'll then look at wording and decide to take the change<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Or resolve on intent<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Resolve that we want the interpretation to be the first one in your client and then you write the pull. Obj?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Nope.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: We want the interpretation to be the first option in issue 1832<br>

GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1823#issuecomment-335868256 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 16:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:19 UTC