- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:48:48 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach fantasai: > Ok, I can live with that... what do you think of > > | If the multi-column element is paginated, then the height of each > | row is constrained by the page, and the content continues in a new > | row of column boxes on the next page: a column box never splits > | across pages. > > though? That's fine, added (with a semi-colon). > > > And because we changed the rules for BFCs to not collapse with their > > > children, I'd shift the BFC sentence down and put it with the margin > > > collapsing clause, thus: > > > > > > | A multi-column element establishes a new block formatting context, > > > | as per CSS 2.1 section 9.4.1. However, the top margin of the first > > > | element and the bottom margin of the last element collapse with > > > | the margins of the multi-column element as per the normal rules for > > > | collapsing. > > > > The first line would be a repetition. I think the text is ok as is. > > A repetition of what? That sentence doesn't appear anywhere else anymore. You're right. Added. > > Why wait? Why not send to LC now? The syntax has been stable for years > > and we have two (partial) implementations... > > I'd like to see Alex's point about page-break-* addressed I agree that we should close this before LC'ing the draft. I've added it as an issue. I'm ok with changing it -- it makes the draft simpler while retaining the same functionality. Are there any opposing votes? > I haven't reviewed your pseudo-algorithm in detail The LC would be a good opportunity to do so. (And I should give Bert credit for writing up the pseudo-algorithm) -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 22:49:43 UTC