-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 672
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-break] Clarify definition of widow and orphans. #1823
Labels
css-break-3
Current Work
Comments
The Working Group just discussed
The full IRC log of that discussion<dael> Topic: Clarify definition of widow and orphans.<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/1823 <dael> florian: I realized there was ambig. in the definition. [reads from spec] <TabAtkins> (this is probably related to how line-clamp needs to work) <dael> florian: The reaosn I think this is ambig is that line boxes in a block container isn't clear if they must be direct children or indirect descendants. I don't think it intends indirect. If it did if you had a div with two paragraphs with widows and you'd end up glueing them together. <dael> florian: I think we clarify that we only mean direct children. <dael> TabAtkins: THe usual intent is to set on a page box, correct? <dael> fantasai: No, this is about paragraphs, not page boxes. <dael> fantasai: The definion is about block containers with line boxes. You must have a min number of line boxes in each fragment. I thought that was clear, but if it's not we can clarify. This is only line boxes. And property inherits. If there's a block in your block that's a child. But you can break at the boundary. <dael> fantasai: You can always say break after at a block. Usually that's not an issue because a block inside a block is sep. content. <dael> astearns: Intent is closer to v1 in the example. <dael> dauwhe: v2 in the example would be bad. <dael> dauwhe: abs v1 <dael> florian: I think there are rare cases where you might want v2 but you should control that seperately. <dael> astearns: If there is a case where you want v2 you would structure html differently. <dael> florian: prob <dael> dauwhe: Or the thing you're trying to fix would not be a widow. <fantasai> s/a child/a child to which widows can also apply/ <dael> florian: I think we can address the rarity of v2 another time if we can resolve on meaning v1. An editor can change or I send a PR. <dael> astearns: I'm not certain an edit is req but that may be because I"m interp in a particular way. <dael> Bert: If florian finds it's unclear it prob is. I didn't imagine it in another way, but if florian reads it another way it needs clarification <dael> astearns: florian you'll do a PR to fix the wording? <dael> florian: Yes <dael> astearns: Okay, we'll then look at wording and decide to take the change <dael> florian: Or resolve on intent <dael> astearns: Resolve that we want the interpretation to be the first one in your client and then you write the pull. Obj? <dael> TabAtkins: Nope. <dael> RESOLVED: We want the interpretation to be the first option in issue 1832 |
Spec PR: #1864 |
fantasai
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Aug 23, 2018
…apply to block containers that directly contain line boxes (only)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The section on orphans, widows in css-break says this:
While it is clear to me what this is supposed to do if the block container only contains inline-level content, the meaning is less obvious when it has block level descendants.
Take this example:
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/#block-container is pretty clear that block containers can either contain online inline-level boxes or block level boxes, but the terminology isn't 100% clear (as far as I can tell) about whether a block container that contains block level elements can still be said to have "line boxes in it” (indirectly, via its block level children that themselves are block containers containing inlines), or if it should be considered not to have "line boxes in it”.
widows:3
forbids breaks inside both<p>
, but does not prevent breaks between line 2 and 3:The block has no (direct) lines, there's nothing to keep together, and the break is allowed.
I think the spec intends the first one. If that is the case, I suggest clarifying by changing the "Applies to" line to "Block container boxes that establish new inline formatting contexts" and/or by adding the following prose: “The
widows
andorphan
properties have no effect on block container boxes that contains only block-level boxes”.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: