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

Opps, 

I meant 0 - 360 not 260.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of BIGELOW,JIM 
> (HP-Boise,ex1)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 5:33 PM
> To: www-style@w3.org; ernestcline@mindspring.com
> Subject: RE: [css3-page] LCWD issue 29 -- [29] Section 8
> 
> 
> 
> 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 20:39:32 UTC