- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:05:38 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Alan, > I suppose this could be [css3-page] or [css3-multicol] as well. I've been > working on test cases for how content gets split across region >boundaries in > the absence of explicit breaks. I think that splitting content across > region, column or page boundaries should be substantially (or entirely) >the > same for unforced breaks. [VH] Yes, I agree. The 'natural' breaking rules should be the same in all cases. > There is some guidance in the spec about the expected behavior. For > instance, in 2.3.2 (Allowed region breaks) it's suggested that it's OK to > split between line boxes in a block container box. And 2.3.4 says "Avoid > breaking inside a replaced element," though that's just a recommendation. [VH] This wording is taken from the CSS 2.1 specification and adapted to account for regions. There is a standing issue that all this wording should be made common between multi-column, paged media and CSS 2.1. > It makes perfect sense to me to avoid splitting replaced elements - an >image > or video should be displayed intact if at all possible. But there may >also > be non-replaced elements that are best left intact. For example, I'm not > sure it makes sense to split a button that contains multiple line boxes > across a region (or column or page) boundary. [VH] As you and I have discussed informally, and as you pointed out form elements are not replaced elements. So as we understand it, they can be split between column boxes, pages or regions. I agree this is surprising. > Should the spec go into more detail about unforced break preferences? Are > there any other non-replaced elements that are best left intact? The spec > only makes recommendations, so there won't be testcases for this. Should >it > matter if one implementation chooses to allow buttons to split across > boundaries but another implementation pushes the whole button past the > boundary? [VH] I think it matters and I think it is as important to specify this as it was to specify that replaced content should not be split. I think we should make a proposal and present it to the group and account for feedback we may get in response to this email thread. Cheers, Vincent.
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2011 16:06:45 UTC