- 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