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

FW: RE: [css3-page] LCWD issue 21 -- [21] Section 3.3.2

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 01:21:42 -0500
Message-ID: <410-2200414862142656@mindspring.com>
To: "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>

Sorry about that. I guess I hit Reply instead of Reply All on this one.

> [Original Message]
> From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
> To: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
> Date: 1/7/2004 11:21:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [css3-page] LCWD issue 21 --  [21] Section 3.3.2
>
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
> > To: <www-style@w3.org>; <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
> > Date: 1/7/2004 8:19:51 PM
> > Subject: [css3-page] LCWD issue 21 --  [21] Section 3.3.2
> >
> > Ernest,
> >
> > The list of media names is very large and unbounded. See The Printer
Working
> > Group
> > Standard for Media Standardized Names [1].  However, specifying the
media
> > names letter and A4:
> > 1. addresses a very large number of uses,
> > 2. is notationally convenient (more so than 8.5 11in, etc.), and 
> > 3. is not prone to math round-off or representational errors may not
match
> > the specification by numbers to their internal representation of media
> > sizes.  For example, its more accurate and less ambiguous to say A4 than
> > 210m 297mm which when converted to printer dots (at 600dpi, 1200dpi,
etc)
> > may not match the internal representation.
> >
> > I attempted a compromise by using the two most often used names/sizes
rather
> > than all media names.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > [1] ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5101.1.pdf
>
> The worry about size and bounds could also be said to apply to 
> MIME types and languages.  In this case, since there already exists
> an organization which is defining labels for paper sizes and allows
> free access to those labels, why not just go ahead and use them?
>
> If you are worried about overexactness or name length, that standard
> allows the size information to be dropped and to use only the class-name
> and the size-name.  (Given the possibility of confusion between the ISO B#
> sizes and the JIS B# sizes, I would not recommend the allowed usage
> of just size name.) So, we could have iso_b4 or na_letter or even
> om_juuro-ku-kai and let the UA decide which sizes it can or will support.
>
>  Add in support for the self-describing names and then by using names
> such as custom_pre-shredded_1x297mm the standard could support 
> custom page sizes without having to use a <length> unit that is different
> from any other usage of <length> in the standard. Having  exceptions to
> standard values is not a good idea.  Handling custom sizes this way
> allows the standard to avoid the use of  em and ex and how often will
> someone really want to specify a paper size in px or pt?
>
> For a non-technical user, they would be able to specify just "na_letter"
> or "na_legal" or "iso_a4" for the common sizes, while technical users
> would probably use the full descriptive names for the uncommonly used
> paper sizes assuming that they bother to write specific rules for them,
> while increasing the chance that the UA would be able to understand
> what they mean.  It might be worth including required support for certain
> common sizes such as "na_letter", "na_legal", "na_tabloid", "iso_a4", etc.
> But I don't think it is essential.  If a UA supports printing to a common
> paper size it will almost certainly be able to understand the short form
> of the name, while a user who wishes to use an unusual paper size will
> almost certainly be aware that it would be a good idea to include the
> official dimensions.
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 01:25:38 GMT

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