- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:56:28 +0100
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: bert@w3.org, fantasai@inkedblade.net, Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com, www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Simon Sapin: > > I agree that it could be helpful to replace the term "available-width" > > in the spec. > > It is defined in the spec as the used width. I’ll just assume we have > renamed the variable to "used-width". I think that everyone agrees on > that much. The multicol spec is internally consistent as it stands, but the term "availablble-width" is used differently in CSS 2.1, so it may be better to find a new name. If we choose 'used-width' we get this definition: used-width: if the used width of the multi-column element has not been determined when the 'column-count' and 'column-width' must be determined (e.g., if it is floating with a 'width' of 'auto' as per CSS 2.1 section 10.3.5) this variable is unknown, otherwise it is the same as the used width of the multi-column element. Also, I'd like to replace the somewhat fuzzy parenthesis with a specific list of items in CSS 2.1 that causes this variable to be unknown. > * We have have little interop on A: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Nov/att-0006/multicol-intrinsic.html It seems that the differences you get is due to - including prefixes (implementations that require prefixes are not mature) - testing the shrink-to-fit algorithm (which isn't descibed in the multicol spec) Here are some tests that only tests what's described in the multicol spec itself. http://people.opera.com/howcome/2012/tests/multicol.html#pseudo-algorithm For these, I get interoperability between three shipping implementations: IE, Opera, Prince. Speaking both as editor and implementor, I'm therefore against changing the algorithm (bar the clarification described above). Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 22:57:11 UTC