- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:44:16 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Fantasai, Since the descriptions are wrong in the specs that do not account for box-decoration-break, we cannot reference CSS 2.1 or multi-column. So for normative reference, it seems it the best option is to reference css3-break. It seems we should also have multi-column reference css3-break. Is that right? Vincent From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:25:49 -0800 To: Adobe Systems <vhardy@adobe.com> Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org> Subject: Re: [css3-regions] definitions of 'break-*' >On 01/25/2012 11:31 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: >> fantasai wrote: >>> >>> # When a break splits a box, the box's margins, borders, and >>>padding have no visual >>> # effect where the split occurs. However, the margin immediately >>>after a forced >>> # page/column/region break will be preserved. A forced >>>page/column/region break is >>> # a break that does not occur naturally. >>> >>> This paragraph is inaccurate and should be replaced by a paragraph >>>stating simply that >>> breaking across regions is treated exactly the same as breaking across >>>pages. >>> >> >> [vh] I am happy to remove that if that is the right thing to do. It >>would help to understand why the paragraph is incorrect. The text is >>modeled after: >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg//css3-multicol/Overview.html#column-breaks >> >> which says: >> >> "When a page or column break splits a box, the box's margins, borders, >>and padding have no visual effect where the split occurs. However, the >>margin immediately after a forced page/column break will be preserved. A >>forced page/column break is a break that does not occur naturally." >> >> Is the text in regions saying something inaccurate compared to the >>multi-column spec? If so, can you point out what the issue specific to >>regions? Or is the issue in both regions and multi-column? > >Both specs are wrong, given the existence of 'box-decoration-break'. > >~fantasai > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 16:44:44 UTC