- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 20:45:47 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2013-04-04 20:36 -0700, Alan Stearns wrote:
> There will be some cases where overflow:fragments will generate fragment
> boxes that can not fit any content fragment, and pathological cases where
> box generation could enter an infinite loop, like this:
>
> <style>
> .too-big {
> height: 100px;
> }
> .too-small {
> height: 50px;
> overflow: fragments;
> }
> </style>
> <div class="too-small">
> <div class="too-big"></div>
> </div>
Well, the traditional way of handling this sort of case in multicol
or print is to ensure that every column/page contains *some*
content, so we never start the next column/page in the same
situation. In that model, there's no problem here; the big item
just gets placed. (I was assuming that's what css3-break specifies
or will specify; maybe that's not the case.)
It's not clear to me that suppressing this in the case where
something won't fit in the current fragment but might fit in a later
fragment is an important enough use case to be worth implementing.
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 03:46:15 UTC