- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:04:07 -0500
- To: MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp> wrote:
> fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote on 2009/04/09 3:50:42
>> - No way forward for a control to "avoid page turns, but
>> breaks between facing pages ok"
>> [Melinda suggests page-break-*: avoid-turn]
>>
>
>
> I want page-break-*: avoid-turn.
>
> In Japanese vertical-text layout (writing-mode: tb-rl),
> headings often can be appear at end of even-numbered (verso) pages and
> cannot be appear at end of odd-numbered (recto) pages.
> {page-break-after: avoid-turn} is useful for this purpose.
>
> So I support the following:
>
> page-break-before, page-break-after
> Value: auto | always | avoid | left | right | column | allow-column | avoid-turn
>
> page-break-inside
> Value: auto | avoid | allow-column | avoid-turn
At this point I support the logic behind doing this solely through
values, rather than properties. My only opposition is doing it within
the page-break-* properties, but that may be unavoidable at this point
due to backwards compat. I'd prefer a simple break-* set of
properties which accepted these values.
I would prefer we unify whether we phrase the values as allow-* or
avoid-*. This would that, for page-break-inside, we'd either have
"auto | avoid-page | avoid-turn | avoid-column" (in ascending order of
strictness) or "auto | allow-column | allow-facing | allow-none". I
prefer the former, as phrasing it in terms of avoiding page breaks
seems more natural.
~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 21:04:42 UTC