- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:02:53 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Message-ID: <CAA660BE.7CE1%stearns@adobe.com>
On 9/19/11 10:14 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: ... > * Continuations of boxes on a previous page must start at the top of the > page. > If this results in multiple shrinkwrapped floats side-by-side that would > otherwise > be staggered (if they were not continuations), the floats' widths are > reduced > in proportion to their original widths until they fit. However they are > not > reduced past their min-content width; this may result in overlap between > left and > right floats or side-by-side left floats overflowing the containing > block. I agree with performing layout on a per-page basis, with the implications of boxes possibly changing widths across pages (or a region break). But I'm not sure about the "top of page" rule. Is it more important to place a continuation at the top of a page than to honor its layout constraints? I've attached a screenshot showing fixed-width left and right floats getting squeezed, overlapping or just staggering without the "top of page" rule. I'm not sure I see a big advantage to either of the first two if the fixed width was the author's intent. Allowing continuations to use normal layout without a top-of-page rule seems easier to implement and easier to explain. I think in most intentional situations the continuations will naturally fit at the top of the page anyway. Can we leave out this rule? Thanks, Alan
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: continuations.png
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2011 00:03:53 UTC