Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-overflow-4] [css-break] How does `widows` and similar properties affecting fragmentation interact with `continue: discard`? (#9235)

The spec now says:
> Note: The [widows](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-4/#propdef-widows), [orphans](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#propdef-orphans), and [break-inside](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-3/#propdef-break-inside) properties do not affect the position of the forced [region break](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-break-4/#region-break) introduced by the [max-lines](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-4/#propdef-max-lines) property.

I think it would be fine to have a Note indicating that in the `continue:collapse` variant, these are not taken into account (since there is no normative text that would cause them to be), but in the `continue: discard`, I think this needs to be more than a Note, and we need something normative, because otherwise, normative text means that `widows`, `orphans`, and `break-inside` would apply.

First, a question: why include "break-inside" in the list of excluded properties? Unlike `widows` and `orphans`, it's initial value is not problematic. If it is in effect, that means an author set it. Shouldn't we honor it?

I think we can accomplish that in two ways:
* Just state that they don't apply, right there in the spec. In effect, just keep the text of that note, but make it normative
* (leave `break-inside` alone and) change the initial values of the `widows` and `orphans` properties to become `auto`, which does the same thing as now (i.e. `2`) in most contexts, but has no effect in this particular case. That way, if authors do want them to apply, they can set an explicit value.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9235#issuecomment-2947955549 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 6 June 2025 03:16:57 UTC