- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:33:03 -0800
- To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- CC: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Grant, Melinda wrote:
> Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
>
>> I agree with the intent of concept of element adapting to page size
>> change. The primary scenario as I understand it looks like this:
>>
>> table { page: landscape; }
>>
>> at this point, if no other sizing properties are involved, the
>> table’s available width should be the page width. The rule that an
>> element going across pages, should adapt to changing width is one
>> way to assure that.
>
> [MG] I don't think named pages, such as the example you provide, are
> really the issue at hand: they generate a (conditional) page break
> before and after, to ensure that you *don't* need to worry about
> flowing content across discontinuities.
>
> The cases we're concerned with here are brought about by :first,
> :right, and :left variations on a particular page-name theme. Page
> foo:right can have a very different page area than foo:left for
> simple reasons like differing margins or borders, and a page break
> is likely to occur mid-element, so there's no explicit page break
> between elements to keep things simple.
<html>
<body>
<div>
<div>
<table/>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Remember that in a document where a table is pushed onto a named page,
even though the table itself is isolated by page breaks, its ancestor
elements are still breaking across the page size change.
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 00:34:17 UTC