W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css3-break] Empty fragmentainers

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:53:52 -0800
Message-ID: <52D46E80.4060500@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 12/17/2013 08:32 AM, Mihai Balan wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 12:55 AM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3-break] Empty fragmentainers
>> We've removed a bunch of the text (from "and no content-empty"
>> to the end of the sentence), since it's actually redundant with the next sentence. Take a look and let us know if this seems to be clear enough now.
>>     http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#forced-breaks
> It's clearer, but not necessarily better :)
> Since now there's only a recommendation about "Break as few
> times as possible" (SHOULD? MAY?) it will make things harder
> to test with regard to interoperability. In a scenario with
> one small region and one big region, should content that
> doesn't fit in the small region create an empty region and
> be flowed in the big one? How about if we have 3 small regions
> and a big one? How about 10 small regions and one big region?
> Past which point the recommendation to not overflow the region
> takes precedence over "break as few times as possible"?

I don't know what to do here. :) Should we remove that sentence
or replace it with something like "Don't break if it's not
necessary to fit content within the fragmentainer"? I think we
don't have that sentence for line breaking, and it's kindof
obvious, so I don't mind not putting it in... but what would
*you* like to see there?

Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 22:54:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC