W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css3-page] Editorial comments

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:58:47 -0700
Message-Id: <203B2A91-0EB6-494F-8026-DFE841CDB351@gmail.com>
Cc: Lobotom Dysmon <lobotom.da.dismon@free.fr>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:49 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>> In Chapter 8.2. Rendering page boxes that do not fit a page sheet
>> details various possible user agent behaviour for fitting page boxes onto differently sized sheets. It extends and/or
>> conflicts with similar text in Chapter 8.1, in the detailing of what user agents should do when a fixed-size page box can't be
>> matched to a similarly sized sheet.
>> Since the two texts overlap each other, and even though they are on the "should" recommendation level, I think they ought to
>> be merged as one piece, clearly stating what's best in well-defined circumstances. Less we want different browsers each have a
>> different printing results in "common yet exotic cases", but we don't. ;)
> Hmm, good catch. I've removed the text in 8.1 in favor of the text in 8.2;
> let me know if you have any further suggestions.

I think there should be a step in there that allows tiling of the pages, if e.g. there is a page box that is, say, twice as wide as a the sheet size, it doesn't need to reformat contents in order to slice it into left and right halves. So this could be step 3.5, or combined with step 4.

Also, in section 9.4, there should be an allowance for authors to intentionally have content that is wider than the page box in order to have it tiled horizontally. The 3 steps don't seem to allow that.

In both cases, box-decoration-break would be useful in the horizontal direction, for a nicer way to tile horizontally.
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 14:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC