- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:40:00 +0100
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- CC: bert@w3.org, fantasai@inkedblade.net, Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com, www-style@w3.org
Le 04/11/2012 23:56, Håkon Wium Lie a écrit : > [...] 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. That would be great. > It seems that the differences you get is due to > > - [...] > - testing the shrink-to-fit algorithm (which isn't descibed in the multicol spec) Yes, this is exactly my point. There is no interop on shrink-to-fit. If we define shrink-to-fit elsewhere, then some parts of the algorithm become redundant and should be removed. > 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. I believe that this behavior is unchanged with my proposal. This is all about how we split up specs. Cheers, -- Simon Sapin
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 23:40:41 UTC