Forgot to take my smart pills this morning.

[bondchick_nett]

Maybe its having no sleep and taking Mum to the airport at 5am this morning that did it, but is it just me or does this 'article' on orphans and widows say absolutely nothing?

I followed a link from a css blog to it since they claimed it was 'decent' but THEY LIED. O_O;;

Comments

Which isn't a lot really, is it?

[bondchick_nett]

LOL! You have your fingers in everything my cousin! <33333

Well, thats true, its not scandalously indecent, but its certainly not what one would hope for in a complete article. There's LOADS one could think of to put in there -- an actual example for one. The orphans example there is totally useless, one sentence does not a paragraph make. And that doesn't help the example in relation to the rest of the page and content flow.

"The orphans property defines the minimum number of lines of a paragraph that must be left at the bottom of a page."

What does that even mean? Its not clunky english, sure, and its not supposed to be conversational english as it is an official article. But it still seems less than explanatory -- perhaps just not elaborate enough for complete comprehension?

Perhaps:
"In print media, an orphan is the first line of a paragraph appearing alone on the bottom of a page; the remainder of said paragraph continuing on the following page. This is considered sloppy typopgraphy and hinders readability. In css the orphans property defines the minimum number of lines of a paragraph that must be left at the bottom of a page, useful for application where [text auto flows over multiple pages set automatically by a cms?]."

I'm not even remotely sure of the example there, but I'm not the one presuming to know enough to actually put the article up XD XD

Then when one writes the orphans example in the article itself, actually having a paragraph that works/shows how it works would be helpful.

See what I'm saying?

Re: Which isn't a lot really, is it?

[monotonehell]

I didn't have anything to do with it. By the "we" I meant what can we think of that they should also put in there. I was thinking that the next step would be an explanation of orphans and widows. But it seems that they haven't gone into explaining terms in that reference, everything assumes you know what the typographical terms mean and they only explain the CSS properties.

Re: Which isn't a lot really, is it?

[bondchick_nett]

But they don't really explain anything. They give a short meaning, but not an explanation. You know what I mean?

Re: Which isn't a lot really, is it?

[monotonehell]

No idea XD

Actually, yes and I agree with you. They've only given the bare bones info for someone who already knows what it might do but just wants to know how to drive it.