- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:55:07 +0100
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: Andrei Bucur <abucur@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 01/03/2013 15:46, Alan Stearns a écrit : > On 2/28/13 11:40 PM, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > >> Le 01/03/2013 00:11, Andrei Bucur a écrit : >>> I also think it should be noted a propagated forced break does not >>> apply if an unforced break already consumed the oportunity. For >>> example, if there's an unforced break between the last child (that >>> has break-after: always) of an element and the bottom border of it's >>> containing element (e.g. the height of the container is taller than >>> the fragmentainer) we stop propagating the break from the child to >>> the parent beacuse the break occured naturally with the layout. >> >> I¹m not certain of all the corner cases, but I would have thought the >> opposite: ignored unforced breaks if there is a forced break. This is >> because we have many types of forced breaks. For example `break-after: >> right` can generate an empty page in order to continue on a right page. > > So a forced break takes precedence, but the main concern is that an > unforced break and a forced break (propagated or not) at the same break > point results in a single break. Agreed. Just like multiple forced breaks at the same point result in a single actual break. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 1 March 2013 14:55:31 UTC