Re: [css3-multicol] Clarification on column-fill

fantasai wrote:

 > >     Personally, I think the statement is correct and should remain, but I
 > >     may be convinced by a reworded replacement.
 > >
 > > It's correct, but it's incomplete because it's true not just for
 > > paged media, but for any situation where the column set is
 > > breaking vertically. Maybe:
 > >
 > > "When the set of columns breaks vertically, such as in a
 > > paginated context, only the content after the last vertical break
 > > is affected by 'column-fill'."
 > >
 > > That sounds better. However, somewhere something needs to specify
 > > how column content breaks vertically, e.g. to make it clear that
 > > in a paginated context we place as much content as possible in
 > > columns on the first page before placing it in columns on the
 > > next page.
 > 
 >    "When the multi-column element is paginated, only the last row
 >    of column boxes is affected by 'column-fill'."
 > 
 > I think that should be sufficiently clear.

I like your proposed text, and I think we should use it. 

But Robert is also asking for something else, if I understand him
correctly. He'd like for the spec to say that columns should be filled
to the extent possible. I have four possible answers to that:

 a) it's self-evident

 b) it's kind of stated here:

    If the multi-column element is paginated, the height of each row
    is constrained by the page and the content continues in a new row
    of column boxes on the next page

 c) it's a general issue in CSS, we never say that boxes should be
 filled as much as possible before starting a new one, do we?

 d) it will be covered in a future specification on "fragmentation"

For now, I suggest not trying to get this into css3-multicol unless
someone suggests some smashing text.

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 19:03:09 UTC