Re: [css3-multicol] unknown available width and shrink-to-fit

Le 17/10/2012 18:33, Håkon Wium Lie a écrit :
> Also sprach Simon Sapin:
>
>   > > This would make the pseudo-algorithm simpler. Simpler is generally
>   > > better. But if we just move complexity to somewhere else (in time or
>   > > space), we may noe gain much. If we remove lines 03-10 and replace
>   > > 'available-width' with 'used-width', the input to the pseudo-algorithm
>   > > would change: 'used-width' would have to be known. What should the
>   > > spec say about finding it -- just point to shrink-to-fit in 2.1?
>   >
>   > I think that CSS 2.1 does a pretty good job at separating how a box
>   > behave "on the inside" and "on the outside".
>
> So, what is your suggested wording for 'used-width' to go here:
>
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/#pseudo-algorithm

The text to be replaced is:

> available-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,

If we have a separate definition of the multi-column element’s 
min-content and max-content measures, is this condition ever true? I 
think not: the used values of column-count and column-width only need to 
be determined for layout, after the used width is determined. Is this 
incorrect?


> otherwise it is
> the same as the used width of the multi-column element.

The used-width variable would be, well, the used width as per CSS 2.1 
section 10.3.

> In vertical
> text, the used height replaces used width in this calculation.

Still valid. The general term would be "used measure" or "used logical 
width": http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#measure

-- 
Simon Sapin

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 08:16:49 UTC