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

Re: [css-overflow-3] why so restrictive on styling fragment descendants?

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 13:00:02 -0700
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5B06BCED-A219-4B38-9130-BEA713EDA4D9@gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

> On Oct 31, 2014, at 12:38 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 
> On Friday 2014-10-31 12:31 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> In section 6.1.3 of Overflow Module 3 [1], it allows selection and styling of descendants of nth-fragments. However, it says:
>> 
>> ...the only CSS properties applied by rules with such selectors are those that apply to the ‘::first-letter’ pseudo-element
>> 
>> Why this restriction? Why not allow the descendants of the fragment box be styled with the full range of properties? I would think there’s be a near infinite number of use cases to do so. For instance, using different floating or positioning based on whether an element is in an odd fragment box or an even fragment box (imagine arranging the fragment boxes into two columns).
>> 
>> Is this because of how it can complicate ‘max-lines’? If so, then perhaps the more restrictive styling should only apply when the element is inside a ‘max-lines’-limited fragment box.
> 
> I think the main reason for the restriction is that descendants of
> fragments might be split between multiple fragments, so we need the
> styles to make sense even if they apply only to part of an element.
> There might also be others that I've forgotten, although I don't
> think max-lines is involved.
> 

I see. Well, maybe it will need to be deferred until level 4, but I’d rather we just defined what happens to an element when it’s padding/position/floating/etc. changes between fragment boxes (including pages) (defined to not have accidental loss of content).
Received on Friday, 31 October 2014 20:00:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:47 UTC