- From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 17:09:55 +0100 (IST)
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, October 6, 2013 1:57 pm, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> > The current GCPM ED shows examples of single-column and all-column
> > footnote area styles [3]. It's not clear to me whether the default
> would
> > be to fill (not span) all the columns defined for the page.
>
> With 'fill', you mean that there should be three (say) column at the
> (say) bottom of the page, and that all footnotes are pured into those
> columns?
Yes. In a three-column set-up, it would seem a better alternative to have
all three the same height rather than, Goldilocks-like, having one that's
very large and one that's very small and only one that's 'just right'.
> > It also
> > doesn't seem possible to use more columns than are defined for the
> page,
> > which you might want to do because the footnote font size is smaller
> > and/or because the many footnotes are generally short. E.g., "Book
> > Typography, A Designer's Manual", page 209, shows an example of three
> > columns of footnotes at the bottom of a single-column page, for which
> it
> > states "If several short notes fall on the same page, they are better
> set
> > in columns".
>
> In principle, one should be able to make the footnote area a multicol
> container. Like this:
>
> @page { @footnote {
> float: bottom;
> column-span: all;
> columns: 3;
> }}
That is what you'd reach for, yes.
> Whether implementor are happy with this, I don't know. I suspect they
> would need convincing by customers, not just spec editors :)
Or by the Digital Publishing Interest Group's pagination task force (lead
by Dave Cramer) deciding that it's a priority requirement (though I
suspect there'd be higher priorities).
Regards,
Tony Graham tgraham@mentea.net
Consultant http://www.mentea.net
Mentea 13 Kelly's Bay Beach, Skerries, Co. Dublin, Ireland
[1] http://www.w3.org/2012/12/global-publisher/report.html
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 16:10:19 UTC