- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:57:51 -0400
- To: shelby@coolpage.com
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>, www-style@w3.org
Please don't forget/abandon my column suggestions. What happens next? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0299.html [css3-multicol] overflow and paging? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0285.html [css3-multicol] accessibility and UX http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0303.html [css3-multicol] propose "column-width:minimum" >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com> >> wrote: >>> [snip] >>> >>>>> I don't think we need a new keyword - the behavior we want is >>>>> already specifiable with the vh unit, which represent 1% of the >>>>> viewport's height. So you could have something like >>>>> "column-max-height: 100vh" as the default value. It would otherwise >>>>> accept any length, with a value of 'auto' meaning "no maximum >>>>> height". >>>> >>>> >>>> Very nice generalization. Thank you for spending the effort. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> On further thought, this won't work correctly. The column-max-height >>> needs to be constrained to its outer container's block direction >>> dimension >>> constraint (aka height), not to the viewport. >> >> This can be done with a "column-max-height:100%", assuming we define >> percentages to be relative to the height of the multicol element. > > > IMO, that should be the default, not 100vh, so that we can prevent by > default those visually inconspicious flow order errors that I was > describing. > > >> (If >> you have padding/border/etc, you'll have to use a calc() to get the >> value right.) > > > Hmmm. I am thinking off-top-of-head that should automatically calc? IMO, > we always want the column-height to fit within the outer container's clip > by default, if for no other reason, because it is the only way to make > accessibility work correctly by default. Also to prevent those visually > inconspicious flow order errors that I was describing. [snip]
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2010 15:58:29 UTC