- From: Morten Stenshorne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:47:42 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Your suggestion seems fine. However, I have a hard time understanding how that would result in such a table. The first row: column-fill:auto should force balancing in a continuous context, unless block-size is constrained. So you probably need to split the first row in two, one for constrained length (no balancing no matter what), and one for unconstrained length (balance in continuous media). That would represent the reality of today. Furthermore, balance-all, unconstrained block-size, and last fragmentainer (last row, second-to-last cell): This one should say "yes", shouldn't it? We definitely want to balance if balance-all is specified. Always. So the last cell in the last row should also say "yes". The "no*" in the third row doesn't seem right, either. If height is unconstrained, we should balance the last fragmentainer. I think you want to say "yes*". I'm imagining this: If column-fill is balance-all: Always balance, everywhere. If column-fill is balance: Always balance, except when participating in an outer fragmentation context and it is not the last fragmentainer. If column-fill is auto: Never balance, unless block-size is unconstrained. Even if block size is unconstrained, do not balance if we're participating in an outer fragmentation context and it is not the last fragmentainer. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mstensho Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4036#issuecomment-503468457 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2019 08:47:43 UTC