- From: Morten Stenshorne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:43:25 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Indeed, Chromium doesn't do exactly what the spec says at all. Your reading of the spec seems correct, @dholbert . That seems to be exactly what the spec is saying. I was the one who implemented this in Chromium, and my interpretation back then was to apply it in the same cases as when ```break-before``` or ```break-after``` apply. That's clearly not what the spec says, though. Now quite sure how I managed to end up with that conclusion. Too much thinking, too little reading? :) There's this mental model of possible class A (and class C as well, actually) break opportunities, and how ```break-before``` and ```break-after``` values propagate up to them. And one might ask: why should ```page``` be any different? Wouldn't it make sense to change the spec to this effect? There seems to be interop to *some* extent, at least. Firefox also renders the test in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7235#issuecomment-1110350511 onto one page. Note that making such a change would imply that we can get breaks at class C breakpoints triggered by ```page```. ```html <!DOCTYPE html> <style> body { margin: 0; } </style> <div style="border:solid;"> <div style="float:left; width:100px; height:100px; background:hotpink;"></div> <div style="clear:both; page:different;"> next page. </div> </div> ``` -- GitHub Notification of comment by mstensho Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7235#issuecomment-1959173668 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2024 10:43:26 UTC