W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2005

Re: FW: conflicts in CSS Print Profile?

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 20:12:30 +0200
To: "Bigelow, Jim (LaserJet Firmware)" <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200505192012.31164.bert@w3.org>

On Thursday 19 May 2005 17:12, Bigelow, Jim (LaserJet Firmware) wrote:
> Forwarded by Jim Bigelow for Junzo Ikuta
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-imaging@forum.upnp.org
> > [mailto:owner-imaging@forum.upnp.org] On Behalf Of Junzo IKUTA
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:11 AM
> > To: imaging@forum.upnp.org
> > Subject: conflicts in CSS Print Profile?
> >
> > Melinda-san,
> >
> > I'm afraid this reflector is not the right place to discuss this,
> > because it is not about PrintEnhanced:1 itself, but about the
> > specification referenced in PrintEnhanced:1.
> > But I hope this may be of some information for all.
> >
> > I am confused by some conflicts among CSS Print Profile and
> > CSS 2/2.1/3 specs.
> > Could we make some changes to CSS Print Profile spec?

The properties that are no longer in CSS2 will be in CSS3, but the 
corresponding modules of CSS3 aren't Candidate Recommendation yet and 
so the Print Profile can't point to them (except for the 'page' and 
'size' properties, which are in the Paged Media module).

Probably what should happen is that the Print Profile adds a reference 
to the old CSS2 Recommendation for those properties that aren't in the 
revised CSS2 (except for 'page' and 'size, which can point to the Paged 
Media module).

> >
> >
> > Details below.
> >
> > In Chapter 4. Properties, CSS Print Spec says "Refer to
> > CSS 2.1 for the definition and values",
> > but I suppose the properties and values in table in chapter 4
> > was derived from CSS 2, and causes some conflicts.
> >
> > Some examples:
> >
> > e-1) font-stretch
> > The 'font-stretch' property doesn't exist in CSS 2.1.
> > (But revived in CSS 3)

No sufficiently stable CSS3 module yet, so must point to the old CSS2 
for now. (No changes to the definition are expected, but the property 
isn't required for CSS2 conformance anymore.)

> >
> > e-2) marker-offset
> > The 'marker-offset' property doesn't exist in CSS 2.1.
> > (Also doesn't exit in CSS 3)

I think we concluded that nobody had implemented it, so it could safely 
be dropped. It will likely be replaced by a ::marker pseudo-element in 
CSS3, which has a normal margin to control the offset.

I think it should be dropped from the Print Profile.

> >
> > e-3) page
> > The 'page' property doesn't exist in CSS 2.1.
> > (But revived in CSS 3)

This is defined in the Paged Media module, which is a Candidate 
Recommendation. So the reference can be to that.

> >
> > I would say font-stretch and marker-offset is not so important,
> > but the page is very important for CSS Print.
> > Treated as the same as 'size' property?

Yes.

> > (The spec says that we should refer CSS3 for the 'size' property)
> >
> > e-4) visibility
> > Inheritance of visibility is:
> >   CSS2: no
> >   CSS2.1: yes
> >   CSS3: no
> > Although its not the conflict in CSS Print, but what spec must we
> > follow? As CSS2.1 says, inherited:yes???

CSS 2.1 is the revised version of CSS2, so everywhere where the CSS 2.1 
definition differs from the CSS2 one, the CSS2 one is no longer valid.

We decided that the definition of 'visibility' in CSS2 was buggy. The 
old definition didn't actually say what the visibility was in the 
absence of any style rules, but everybody assumed (and implemented) 
'visible'. The new definition makes it clear that it is indeed 
'visible'. In all cases where there are explicit rules in the style 
sheet, the behavior is unchanged.

(That may be paradoxical, because the property changed from not 
inherited to inherited, but the old initial value was 'inherit', so it 
inherited anyway...)

> >
> > e-5) list-style-type
> > The CSS Print Spec says values for list-style-type is:
> > disc, decimal, lower-alpha, upper-alpha, none and inherit.
> > But Values lower-alpha, upper-alpha don't exist in CSS 2.1.
> >
> > Must printer vendors impliment lower-alpha and upper-alpha?
> > Can content authers use lower-alpha and upper-alpha?

That's a known bug in the CSS 2.1 spec, I believe. Lower-alpha and 
upper-alpha are still there, but they have gone missing from the 
grammar and the index. Will check.

> >
> > I think it would be better that table in chapter 4,
> > CSS Print Profile spec be re-written so that it conforms
> > to CSS 2.1.

Yes, as much as possible, everything should implement the revised CSS2, 
not the old one.

> > (But PrintEnhanced:1 has already referenced
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css-print-20040225/...)



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 19 May 2005 18:12:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:37 GMT