- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:56:47 +0100
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Julian Viereck <julian.viereck@googlemail.com>, www-style@w3.org
Le 25/03/2013 23:43, Robert O'Callahan a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com > <mailto:howcome@opera.com>> wrote: > > Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > > I believe this would be more like > > @page :left div.pagenum { position: pagebox: > > left: 8%; top: 3%; > > content: counter(page) } > > @page :right div.pagenum { position: pagebox: > > right: 8%; top: 3%; > > content: counter(page) } > > Using positioning, you can get rid of the need to set text-align. > > That's shorter. Good. But you still don't align with the page area. > And people will run into overlap/overflow issues, as we know they do > with abspos. > > > As far as I can tell, the current language in the dev.w3.org spec Do you mean in the css3-page editor’s draft? The algorithm is the same is in this month’s working draft: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/#variable-sizing http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css3-page-20130314/#variable-sizing > would cause the title and page number to overlap under exactly the > same conditions as the proposed positioning feature (i.e. when the > width of the title plus twice the width of the page number are > greater than the page area width). That is not the case. If all three boxes (eg. @top-left, @top-center and @top-right) have 'width: auto', they never overlap. (There might be overflow if there is too wide unbreakable content, aka. 'min-content' or minimum preferred width.) -- Simon Sapin
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 08:57:23 UTC