- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:53:14 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Brad Kemper:] > OK, I at least understand your point of view better, but I'm not 100% > convinced it is the best solution (but less sure of my own position). Whether it is a better solution or not depends on the requirements you set, and how you rank them. I don't think anyone is arguing that column-width:auto should not mean 'adjust column widths'. What I am definitely arguing - and Steve also, I think - is that column-width:auto cannot be assumed to mean the author cares so little about the content that it can disappear entirely. That seems very undesirable, including for the non-text/alternative/exotic scenarios you don't want to preclude. Things are not that much better either if there is content but it's unusable in overconstrained cases. I don't care how much consensus there is that authors should set column-width. That they should is no good reason to make the auto option too poor to use in practice. (Or so poor one has to use media queries) > If you have a multicol object with some forced column breaks in it, then > it is pretty similar to having a single-row table with table-spacing. But > better, because you can handle overflow and abspos better. But I kind of > like that a table won't ever get narrower than all of its table-spacing. Sorry, not sure I follow you...
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 17:53:50 UTC