Re: [css3-break] Comments on possible break points (section 4.1)

On 7/18/12 8:40 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 03/16/2012 11:02 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> In section 4.1, the possible break points section says things like,
>>about sibling boxes:
>>
>> "when the block flow direction of the sibling's parent is parallel Š"
>>
>> This refers to a notion of parent for layout boxes. I think this should
>>be defined in the spec. In particular, in the case of regions, the
>>content of a named flow does not necessarily have a common parent. We
>>can have elemA and elemB moved to a named flow and they do not share a
>>common parent. When laying them out, they will generate boxA and boxB.
>>In that context, I think we should clarify that they are still sibling
>>boxes for the purpose of layout and say that the block flow direction
>>that is used is that of the first region (see section 4.1 of the regions
>>draft, http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-regions/#the-flow-into-property,
>>note on writing mode).
>
>We tried to work around this by using "containing block" instead of
>"parent".
>If that's not sufficient, then perhaps Regions needs to define that the
>contents of a flow are wrapped in an anonymous box (and define what
>properties
>that box has). Various other aspects of layout are not well-defined if
>this is
>not done; it's not an issue specific to fragmentation.
>
>Wrt defining whether the boxes in a region flow are siblings: I believe
>that
>is certainly the job of Regions and not of fragmentation.
>
>~fantasai

The change to "containing block" should be sufficient, as we do define the
containing block for the named flow.

I agree that CSS Regions should clarify that elements moved to a named
flow are siblings. We mention this in two special cases, but I'll add text
for the general case as well.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 22:18:34 UTC