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

Re: Calling for a massive revamp of Paged Media and GCPM

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:03:49 +0100
Message-ID: <50F2DAE5.5090107@kozea.fr>
To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 13/01/2013 16:41, Daniel Glazman a écrit :
> On 13/01/13 16:39, Simon Sapin wrote:
>> >Le 13/01/2013 16:08, Daniel Glazman a écrit :
>>> >>So let me correct what I said : "were never implemented by a browser".
>> >
>> >Ok. But that does not mean we can just remove these existing features.
>> >I’m all for new features for Paged Media, but I maintain that we should
>> >first finish css3-page (I’m convinced we’re close) and only then add new
>> >stuff in the next level.
> The current level makes sense only if browser vendors are going to
> implement it... For the time being, it seems there is a complete lack
> of interest about it.

I don’t know if anything came out of it, but Chrome expressed some 
interest at some point:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0216.html


More recently, Firefox 19 added support for @page:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0beta/releasenotes/
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115199

Nothing from level 3 yet, but still some progress around Paged Media.


But even that aside, let’s assume the browser vendors never really take 
interest in Paged Media as it stands. Then what? Will the interest 
suddenly come when we add lots of new features?

As you said, there is a lot more that CSS could do with eBooks, word 
processors, publishing, and in many other contexts that are not in web 
browsers. Should the lack of interest from browser vendors prevent this?

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2013 16:04:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:04 GMT