- From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:35:56 +0000
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
"Also, in print you may want both types of orphans, with a different number" - good point, I had not thought that the second implementation I want for screen might also make it into paged media. OK then, what about, as Lea suggests: orphan-words: 2; The number being the minimum number of words that must appear on the new-line if a new-line is required. e.g., This is a heading that doesn't wrap This is a heading that has an orphan This is a heading that wraps with orphan control On 5 January 2012 13:32, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > Le 05/01/2012 14:27, Matthew Wilcox a écrit : > >> yes, you're right - however Orphans only applies to paged media. So is >> there anything to stop the screen media implementation doing the >> sensible thing and using the second definition (which is the only >> definition relevent to screen)? > > > I think this is a bad idea. No other CSS property (that I know of) change > their meaning depending on the media type. (Besides being irrelevant/not > applying.) > > Re-using the same property name will not make it happen faster anyway. > > Also, in print you may want both types of orphans, with a different number. > > -- > Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 13:36:25 UTC