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

[css-break] Independence of parallel flows

From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:48:39 +1100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20140115034839.GA10093@mail.internode.on.net>
[I'm back after a few months' break from CSS things; now with different e-mail
 address.]

I happened to be just in the middle of reading css-break when I saw Peter
Linss' message about publishing an updated WD of css-break.

I don't know whether or not you'll want to address any of these comments before
publishing the WD, but I thought it best to post what I have now to give you
the option.

The cost of doing so is that some of these comments might be a bit premature,
i.e. I haven't finished going through the spec, so don't yet have a feel for
what it's trying to do with each of these bits.  I'll split into separate
messages, other than gathering together the more editorial comments.


§2.1 ‘Parallel Fragmentation Flows’: independence

  To say that the choice of fragmentation break inside one flow has absolutely
  no influence on the choice of break in another seems too strong.  It would 
  look odd if one flow extended a line or more beyond where another flow ends
  (in this fragmentainer) (as might occur as a result of widow/orphan
  considerations).  This paragraph seems to read as forbidding a UA from
  improving the page appearance by allowing a widow consideration in one flow
  to affect the choice of fragmentation break in other flows.

  If we accept that CSS should not prescribe the exact choice of line breaks,
  then I see no reason to enforce ugly page breaks on conforming UAs.

  I suspect that this wasn't actually the intent of this section, but I so far
  haven't worked out what it does intend by "independently" and "not affect the
  content wrapping".


pjrm.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 15:04:42 UTC

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