RE: [css3-multicol] pseudo-algorithm

[Håkon Wium Lie:]
> The primary use case is best handled by setting 'column-width' to a value
> other than auto. And then we will not get into this part of the code.

I know. But we're discussing what happens when one gets in this part of the
code :) I don't think it's that difficult, frankly.

>  > One that could be triggered by something as simple as the viewport  >
> being resized to half its size by the window manager. As specified,  > I
> think the current fallback pretty much forces the author to  > define a
> media query to handle the result.
> 
> Media queries is an option. But setting 'column-width' is easier.

We support column-width:auto. I don't think of 'auto' as being 'auto-ugly'...

>  > >This will not be the most common case, and we  > > shouldn't really
> encouage its use -- unless author really wants a specific  > > number of
> columns.
>  >
>  > Experience indicates that 'encouragements' have limited influence on
> what  > authors do in practice.
> 
> Sure. But if they chose to set column-count and column-gap to specific
> values, perhaps they mean it?

Perhaps they mean what ? That the result should look fine when the window
is maximized, that it should look awful when it is resized, or both ?
 
> In a few cases this will be what the designer wants.

Sure. That doesn't help in those cases where that is not what they want.
My assumption, of course, is that there are more of those.

> 3) could be expressed as:
> 
>     if (column-width = auto) then
>         N := column-count;
>         W := max(0, (available-width - ((N - 1) * column-gap))/N);
>     fi
> 
> So, 'column-width' would work as 'width', and 'column-gap' would work as
> 'padding'.
> 
> What's your preferred solution?

That's even worse; this means the content is effectively gone for the user.

Of the ones you have suggest, I prefer leaving the current algorithm alone as 
this is the least bad in terms of outcome.

Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 22:55:33 UTC