- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 00:03:44 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
On 07/19/2013 03:47 AM, Morten Stenshorne wrote: > > Trying to make the fragmentainers as tall as possible makes sense, > yes. The classes 1, 2 and 3 are just about different types of break > opportunities, as far as I understand. I don't think one should be > preferred over another. Ok, we've clarified this point by switching to letters and adding a note. :) http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#possible-breaks Let me know if this helps, or if you have other suggestions. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#best-breaks > > The spec isn't very strict about this, other than "don't break more than > you have to" and "don't break inside truly unbreakable stuff". But it > also seems to suggest that fragmentainer heights be balanced (like in > multicol?), but that seems weird to me. If you have a text document that > needs one and a half pages, should you then make both pages 75% full, > rather than filling the first one completely and leaving the second one > half empty? I think "end of content" counts as a forced break. I'm not entirely sure what was in mind when these rule were written (they date back to CSS2.0). I've asked Håkon if he remembers what was on his mind wrt even heights, since I believe he was in charge of that chapter... http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/page.html#q16 Liam might also have an idea. Liam? ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 07:04:12 UTC