- 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