W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: [css3-page] comments on last ED

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:49:47 +0100
Message-ID: <5125DFAB.208@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 21/02/13 09:15, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Daniel Glazman:
>
>   >    Not sure the page and page counters' definition in section 7.1
>   >    should not belong to the GCPM spec.
>
> Double negatives makes parsing harder. But I do not think we should
> move page counters to GCPM, if that's what you are proposing. It seems
> we have intereoperability in three shipping implementations:
>
>    http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters.html
>    http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-antennahouse.pdf
>    http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-prince.pdf
>    http://people.opera.com/howcome/2013/tests/css3-page/page-counters-weasyprint.pdf

It's not a question of "this is implemented and interoperable" but a 
question of "does it belong to that spec given its title and
introduction"?". This is about a counter and the way to generate content
from it. I can live with the current position in css3-page, but I think
we ask from other specs in the WG a greater homogeneity that is not met
here. Hence my proposal to move it to GCPM. I guess it will be for L4.

</Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 08:50:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT