- From: Michael Jansson <mjan@em2-solutions.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:48:41 +0200
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, www-style@w3.org
Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach Michael Jansson: > > > My vote would be on not introducing additional properties for columns > > breaks, from an implementation/performance perspective. > > Right. > > > From a html/css > > author point of view, I would prefer to not mix up column and pages as > > it makes it unclear how to use the property. > > I can see that, too. > > > How about mixing it up in > > the values instead, so instead of having > > "page-break-<whatever>:<value>" and > > "column-break-<whatever>:<value>" > > we would have > > "break-<whatever>:<page-value>|<column-value>". > > For example: "break-inside: page", "break-inside:column", > > "break-inside:any", "break-inside:none", etc. > > I can see the benefit of only having one set of properties, and that > the names of these properties are neutral. However, I don't really > understand what 'break-inside: page' means. Force page breaks inside > the elements? Prohibit them? Allow them? > I guess you would want at least something like "inside-break: avoid-page", "inside-break: avoid-column", "inside-break: avoid-all" and "inside-break: allow-all" etc!? I'm commenting on naming the property and not really on the semantics and use of these properties (haven't had time to look at that too closely). From a very quick glance, it looks like it would be quite useful though!
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2009 14:50:01 UTC