- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:54:12 +1300
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 03:54:42 UTC
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:45 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > 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. > Yes. That would require some kind of lookahead to see if there's a later fragment we can fit the content into, because if there isn't we'd want to put the content in the current fragment even though it overflows. That would be horrible to implement, so let's not :-). Rob -- q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"
Received on Friday, 5 April 2013 03:54:42 UTC