Re: [css3-multicol] Review of multicol-block-clip-001

Le Jeu 25 juillet 2013 3:33, Håkon Wium Lie a écrit :
> Also sprach "Gérard Talbot":
>  > > However, it makes a lot of sense to also make widows/orphans apply
> in
>  > > i multicol layouts -- even in non-paged media, no? Probably, the
>  > > multicol spec should address this.
>  >
>  > orphans : "minimum number of lines in a block container that must be
>  > left at the bottom of a page."
> That's the CSS 2.1 definition. CSS 2.1 dealt with pages, but not
> columns, so it's natural for it not to mention columns.
> Wikipedia, however, mentions columns along with pages:
>   "In typesetting, widows and orphans are words or short lines at the
>   beginning or end of a paragraph, which are left dangling at the top
>   or bottom of a column"
>   "Widow: A paragraph-ending line that falls at the beginning of the
>   following page/column,"
>   "Orphan: A paragraph-opening line that appears by itself at the
>   bottom of a page/column."

Text editors like MS-Word97, MS-Word2003, MS-Word2007, MS-Word2013,
LibreOffice (Writer) 3.x and 4.x also have orphan and widow as a
settable preference for paragraph.

> So, I'd argue that 'orphans' and 'widows' should apply to columns as
> well,

'orphans' and 'widows' apply to block containers; and so it does to
multi-column too. But it only makes sense in paged media. 'orphans' and
'widows' have no rendering effect in the visual media.

> and (a future version of) the specification should address this.
> Therefore, I don't think the tests should punish implementations who
> apply this.

It would not punish any implementations if 'orphans: 1' and 'widows: 1'
were to be removed. By default, it is 'orphans: 2' and 'widows: 2'
(albeit, webkit uses 'orphans: auto' and 'widows: auto'). And so it
would become 'orphans: 2' and 'widows: 2' .

>  > So, how would (or could or should) this apply to the test in paged
> media
>  > anyway? I am more tempted to remove 'orphans: 1' and 'widows: 1' than
> to
>  > keep those.
>  >
>  > When I had the vendor-prefix and when in print preview, Chrome
>  > 28.0.1500.71 fails the test regardless of the widows and orphans
>  > declarations.
>  >
>  > If the test is supposed to be tested also in page media, then we
> should
>  > create another test and then add the "paged" flag to such test. As
> is,
>  > this test should be passed or failed in screen media. Whether the
> test
>  > passes or fails in paged media really should be in another separate,
>  > distinct test.
> Removing the explicit "screen" media type seems like an elegant
> solution to me. It makes tests simpler, and it means that page-centric
> implementations also can run the tests (both Prince and AntennaHouse
> have mature multicol implementations).

Okay. I'm going to keep 'widows: 1' and 'orphans: 1' as they are
declared in tests.

I would appreciate if you could explain what 'widows: 0' and 'orphans:
0' is supposed to be doing in a bunch of tests then? Are those really
required by those tests? I don't think so...

Contributions to the CSS 2.1 test suite:

CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011:

CSS 2.1 test suite harness:

Contributing to to CSS 2.1 test suite:

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2013 21:21:49 UTC