Re: [css-break] extending 'break-before'

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/11/15, 10:43 AM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Right now, 'break-before' and 'break-after' can avoid or force a column 
>> break, region break, or page break. I would like something before that to 
>> influence line breaking due to auto wrapping. So for instance, the actual 
>> use case where this came up for me:
>> 
>> <p><input type=radio value=yes /> <label>Yep</label> <input type=radio 
>> value=no /> <label>Nope</label></p>
>> 
>> The html doesn't have spans around each input/label group, otherwise I 
>> would set each group to be 'white-space:nowrap', so that the label always 
>> stays on the same line as its associated input. So instead, I'd like to 
>> do this:
>> 
>> input[type=radio] + label {
>>   break-before: avoid-line;
>> }
>> 
>> So that when a label follows a radio button, it will not wrap the line in 
>> a way that breaks between them, unless it absolutely has to in order to 
>> make things fit. That would actually be better than the white-space 
>> version, because it would still allow breaking between if the paragraph 
>> was narrower than the input/label combination. 
>> 
>> A side effect would be that 'avoid-line' would also keep it from breaking 
>> for columns, regions, and pages too, since those breaks also break lines. 
>> So we wouldn't necessarily need to retrofit the 'avoid' keyword (as in, 
>> avoid breaking for columns, regions, and pages) to also avoid line 
>> breaks.  
>> 
>> Has this been considered before? I saw the note that line-breaks are not 
>> covered by this spec, but I would like to be able to use those same 
>> 'break-*' properties. 
>> 
>> I don't think we would need a corresponding 'break-inside' value, since 
>> 'white-space:nowrap' would be close enough.
> 
> Take a look at wrap-before/wrap-after/wrap-inside in the latest text level 
> 4. [1]
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alan
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-4/#wrap-before

Ah, there it is. Great! I was looking at a lower level of that spec, should have seen that. Thanks.

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 03:38:39 UTC