- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:03:41 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
>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. Yes to the naming consistency. But wouldn't the author still want to combine some of these 'flags' together e.g. page-break-inside: avoid-column, avoid-page; Such multivalue expressions would of course not be backward compatible but the other options currently on the table are not either afaik.
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 00:04:26 UTC