- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:36:42 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I don't think there should be a hard-coded column-min-width. Unlike default column-gap it only matters in extreme cases, and I haven't seen realistic use cases so far that would see a significant benefit from having a min-width on columns (hardcoded or settable). Adding an arbitrary limit is what we used to do in quirks mode... -----Original Message----- From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:24 PM To: Tab Atkins Jr. Cc: Sylvain Galineau; Stephen Zilles; Alex Mogilevsky; www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [css3-multicol] pseudo-algorithm Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > > 6) introduce min-column-width (probably in combination with 2) > > > > + fewer narrow columns > > - would bring us back to last call > > - more complex to implement > > - there would still be lots of clipping > > Would it help if the minimum column width was just enforced in the > algorithm, and not exposed as a property? We can always make a > property to control it later, but for now, just saying that columns > aren't allowed to shrink below 5em or something would ensure that some > content always gets shown, and may reduce the presence of > singularities in the algorithm. Yes, we could probably avoid going back to last call if we hard-code, or just recommend, a certain min-column-width at this stage. It must be possible to override this minimum by setting column-width explicitly; the hardcoded value should only have effect when 'column-width' is auto. 5em is probably a good guess of where it should be. -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2011 20:37:17 UTC