- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:10:42 -0500
- To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alex Mogilevsky wrote: >> -----Original Message----- From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] Sent: Friday, >> January 18, 2008 9:13 AM >> >> Imagine an interactive scrollbox broken into three parts... now apply the page-breaking rules >> so no line boxes get cut in half... while you're scrolling..? I don't want to go there, so we >> need a "The UA may treat scrollable boxes as unbreakable." > > I am with you here, I don't want two halves of a box separately scrollable. At the same time, we > prefer to specify preferred behavior when we can, right? > > My concern with not breaking scrollers across columns is that it would either prevent them from > breaking across pages, or make column breaks inconsistent with pages. > > Maybe: > * in interactive media, elements with overflow:scroll are not breakable across columns or pages I'd say it MUST be treated as "avoid breaks in this element", and if it's the only thing in the page/column then the UA MAY treat it as unbreakable. But if it can break it, we should not discourage that. > * in non-interactive media, UA can choose to clip, overflow or break elements; preferred > behavior is *X* > > (I think preferred behavior is to use scissor pagination in non-interactive case; there isn't > interop there though so it could as well be clip) In the non-interactive case it should be possible to do proper pagination, and that should be preferred if not required. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 19:10:51 UTC