RE: [css3-multicol] Column Breaks

Yes, I certainly did mean "page-break-before" and "page-break-after"

The best motivation for less properties is to avoid dealing with conflicting values of page and column break  properties, especially when some are "avoid" and some are not.

The best way to remove discomfort with less properties is probably to try to implement it. Second best is to describe in detail how all values of column-break-* and page-break-* interact and see if there are combinations that wouldn't be covered by "page-break-*:column".

-----Original Message-----
From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] 
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:56 PM
To: Alex Mogilevsky
Cc: www-style@w3.org; fantasai
Subject: RE: [css3-multicol] Column Breaks

Alex Mogilevsky wrote, on December 11, 2007:

 > > I'm not quite convinced that we need separate properties for
 > > column breaking. If the use case is forcing a column break, then
 > > I think adding keywords to page-break-before and page-break-after
 > > should be sufficient. 

 > I agree. I would be much easier to both understand and implement if
 > there was only one set of properties controlling breaks. And
 > column-break that is a page-break at the same time is a case that
 > is solvable but definitely not intuitive.
 > 
 > There is only one column-break property that is not included in page-breaks:
 > 
 >         column-break:always
 > 
 > what if instead we use
 > 
 >         page-break:column
 > 
 > That would cover all use cases, wouldn't it?

I assume you mean:

  page-break-before: column;
  page-break-after: column;

Yes, I think it would cover all the use cases. It still doesn't look
right, though -- a page and a column are two different things and
setting column breaks on page properties makes me somewhat nervous.

At the same time, I'm all for keeping the number of properties down. 

Hmm.

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Sunday, 22 February 2009 22:03:15 UTC