- From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:11:57 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Håkon said: > > 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 had a chance to think it through sufficiently, but caution signs are flashing in the back of my head. Like, what if I want to avoid a page break within an element, but I don't care if it breaks across columns, because all the associated info would still be visible at once. Presumably, as now, 'page-break-inside: avoid' would accomplish that use case. Now what if I *don't* want the element to break across columns? How would I indicate that? Add a new value? 'page-break-inside: avoid-column'? Or are you thinking we would just omit this control? Similar questions come to mind wrt page-break-before and -after. The 'always', 'right', and 'left' values seem ok (they would continue to cause a page break) and adding 'column' to trigger the column break is fine, but 'avoid' again seems problematic. It seems we would need to add column-avoid or some such to all the page-breaking properties to make overloading these properties workable, or else not provide the author with the ability to try to constrain content to a single column. I'm with Håkon, the clumsy naming is really ugly. Does CSS have any history of adding synonyms as properties? Introduce 'break-before', etc. as synonyms for page-break-before, etc.? Best wishes, Melinda
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 01:13:51 UTC