- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:24:48 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: shelby@coolpage.com, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
> > columns: 3
> >
> > AAAAA BBBBB CCCCD
> > spanning element
> > DDDDD EEEEE FFFFF
> > spanning element
> > GGGGG HHHHH JJJJJ
> >
> > It seems compelling to me.
>
> That seems compelling to me as well, but I still have questions.
> Presumably this only occurs when there is still space left in the
> element, right? That is, it would only occur if the overflow columns
> are due to column breaks, not normal overflow (as that only happens
> when there's a constrained height and the content fills that height).
Yes.
> What if there is normal content between the column-breaking elements
> and the column-spanning element? Would this create a new column row
> just for that content (with the content balanced across the columns),
> followed by a new column row for the spanning element?
A new column would be created for the normal content if the preceding
element has "break-after: column" set (but not if it only has
"break-before: column").
> It seems like perhaps this feature (column spanners in overflow
> columns still showing up in the main area) should instead be a
> function of the column-overflow mode. With 'column-overflow:inline',
> overflow column spanners don't span at all. With
> 'column-overflow:block', they do span, in the way you describe.
Yes, 'column-overflow' when/if defined, could provide control over
this. But we need to define what the rendering should be even without
'column-overflow'.
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 19:25:29 UTC