- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 01:21:35 +0100
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, bert@w3.org, fantasai@inkedblade.net, Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com, www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Simon Sapin:
> > 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.
Multicol is in CR, so the cost of changing it is high. To me it seems
that the work on defining shrink-to-fit can proceed without any
changes to multicol.
> > 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.
That's good.
> This is all about how we split up specs.
It's rather not change the demarcation lines between multicol and
other specs at this stage.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 00:22:18 UTC