- From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:43:35 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> writes: > On 03/19/2015 03:57 AM, Morten Stenshorne wrote: >> And did you mean "actual column count" (not "used column count", BTW)? >> See http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-multicol-1/#pseudo-algorithm > > Ah. Yes. That's weird, used values are supposed to take > layout into account. Somehow we need to be able to distinguish between the column count we calculate based on available width (and computed value of column-count) on one hand, and on the other hand the column count we actually end up with after layout (which depends on content, available height, and the number of forced breaks). The used column-count value can be calculated when the available width is known, which may require the used width of the containing block to be known (unless a fixed width is specified on the multicol container itself). So the used value takes layout of the containing block into account, while the actual value takes layout of the multicol container into account as well. Isn't this kind of similar to how min-height and max-height affect the value of the height property, at least if computed height is auto? Hmm... the spec [1] talks about "tentative used height" vs. "used height". The tentative "used height" would be the height of the content, while the uh... actual "used height" :-P would be clamped to max-height and min-height. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/visudet.html#min-max-heights -- ---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ---- ------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 20:45:24 UTC