W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [css3-page] Proposal: Making variable page area widths in a document optional

From: Linss, Peter <peter.linss@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:20:24 +0000
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
CC: Yuzo Fujishima <yuzo@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2EB03326-1BF2-4DD1-80FD-F895F971EDE5@hp.com>

On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Yuzo Fujishima" <yuzo@google.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:55 AM
> To: <www-style@w3.org>
> Subject: [css3-page] Proposal: Making variable page area widths in a 
> document  	optional
>> Hi,
>> By using :left, :right, or :first pseudo-classes, it is currently possible
>> to make
>> left, right, or first pages have different page area widths.
>> In the following example, right pages are 10cm narrower than left pages:
>> @page :left {margin-left: 3cm;margin-right: 4cm;}
>> @page :right {margin-left: 9cm;margin-right: 8cm;}
> I do not think that it is even technically feasible to have a container with 
> variable width in CSS.
> At least there is no definition of blocks having "jagged" sides as e.g. tall 
> <table width=100%> spanning multiple pages.
> I believe that we should declare "behavior undefined" for variable page area 
> boxes on different pages.
> Or at least "vendor specific" if some printer smart enough will be able to 
> come up with the idea of how to render jagged tables with correct pagination 
> in the future.

The CSS W/G discussed this back in November of 2008.


"RESOLVED: Adopt proposal that page layout on current page assumes ICB
            matches current page size and contents lay out accordingly,
            restrict requirement to SHOULD and applying for non-BFC
            elements in normal flow, all others being undefined"

Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 23:22:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:32 UTC