- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:42:48 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/19/2012 09:45 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: > Hello, > > The rules for breaking (or not) a replaced element are that it should be avoided (section 4.5 of fragmentation spec., or > 13.3.5 of CSS 2.1). Combined with the rules listed in the fragmentation spec. (about varying size fragmenters, see [1]), I > read the recommendation as: if breaking a replaced element such as an image or a video cannot be avoided, then the box > fragments are laid out and the relevant portion of the content is shown. Is that right? > > If so, what happens for an element such as video which may have controls (play/pause) in case the element is split? Shouldn't > this be addressed in the spec? Or should we say that video is always non-breakable and may overflow the fragmenter? > > Likewise, for scrollable content, the draft says: > > "The UA is not required to fragment the contents of scrollable elements e.g. those with ‘overflow’ set to ‘auto’ or ‘scroll’, > and may instead either graphically slice their contents as necessary to fragment the element or treat the element as > unbreakable and overflow the fragmenter. In such cases it must treat the element as having ‘break-inside: avoid’." > > Since this text allow user agents to break scrollable elements, shouldn't the specification say something about the expected > scrolling behavior? There are multiple options (e.g., scrolling only in the last fragment, scrolling in all the fragments, > different syncrhonization between the way scrolling is done). > > Would it be better to require that scrollable elements and video are non breakable always? We believe we've resolved this issue with the new text about monolithic elements in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-break/#breaking-rules Let us know if this addresses your comment. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 15:43:23 UTC