- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:39:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@bfgeek This is fairly unfortunate terminology. The spec actually uses terminology from css-break, not from css-regions. It does reuse the word "region" because that's what css-break uses, but that's not really a dependency on any region-related behavior. The word region is only used as a classifier for forced breaks: they can be "page breaks" (break pages), "column breaks" (breaks multicol), or "region breaks" (break any other kind of css-induced fragmentainers). If you support neither regions nor fragmentation on overflow nor max-lines, then you will have had no occasion yet to run into that kind of breaks, so if you implement max-lines first then this will be an addition. But the addition does not involve bringing over any of the css-region spec. All you need to do is: * be able to fragment * classify these boxes as "category3" (i.e. not pages nor multicol) for the purpose of forced breaks. I think what we should probably do is actually file an issue on css-break to rephrase (and rename) the description of region breaks so that it no longer appears to depend on the regions spec, and instead is just an anchoring point for "category3" breaks, to be invoked from other specs. --- Note: while this does not depend on region, it is designed to be compatible with regions if anyone ever wants to support them again, or with fragmentation-on-overflow if anyone wants to support that, or on any potential mechanism that involves flowing content from one place to another in the box tree. But again, we don't require this to be supported, just define things to behave in a sane way **if** it is supported. -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/390#issuecomment-374071536 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 19 March 2018 00:40:00 UTC