W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2004

RE: [css3-page] LCWD issue 29 -- [29] Section 8

From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 20:32:33 -0500
Message-ID: <79417AA297C63F4EA33B68AC105464A965977F@xboi22.boise.itc.hp.com>
To: www-style@w3.org, ernestcline@mindspring.com

Ernest,

I agree that <angle> in the range of 0 to 260 is preferable to <integer>.  I
look to profiles such as the CSS Print Profile for low cost printers to
simplify the range to 0, 90, 270.  Starting at the full range and allowing
capable printers to implement to their ability seems like a good idea to me.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bigelow [mailto:jhb@jhb.boi.hp.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 4:44 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org; ernestcline@mindspring.com
> Subject: [css3-page] LCWD issue 29 -- [29] Section 8
> 
> 
> Thank you for your comment on the CSS3 Paged Media Module, 
> archived in:  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2003Dec/0130.htm
l

Your issue, shown below, has been assigned the number 29.
> 
> What is the motivation for defining rotation as <integer> instead of 
> as an <angle>?  If the intent is to simplify the task for the UA, 
> limiting the potential values to "0", "90", "180" and "270" would be 
> much more useful than limiting the values to integer degrees.
> 

A further response will be forthcoming. Please address any replys to
www-style@w3.org with [css3-page] in the subject line. 

   -- Jim Bigelow, Editor
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:25 GMT