- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:20:11 -0700
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: shelby@coolpage.com, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
> > 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").
I'm not entirely sure this answers my question, but it might. Let me
give an example to make sure.
Given this markup:
<div break-after:column>foo</div>
<div break-after:column>foo</div>
<div break-after:column>foo</div>
<p>bar</p>
<h1 column-span:all text-align:center>baz</h1>
<p>qux</p>
Where would "bar" show up? (Given a column-count:3 on the containing element.)
Would it be like any of the following?
|-- container---|
(A)
foo | foo | foo | bar
qux
baz
(B)
foo | foo | foo | bar
baz
| qux
(C)
foo | foo | foo
bar |
baz
qux |
?
> > 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'.
Oh, I agree. I was suggesting that we may want to kick the particular
behavior you're suggesting to later, and for now stick with the
behavior that Alex was suggesting.
~TJ
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 20:21:05 UTC