W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2014

Re: [css3-page] different @page size requirements under different orientations

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 22:52:34 -0700
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <4B3855AA-C2FE-4352-9AAB-11969595A4D8@rivoal.net>
To: Faruk Ateş <faruk@presentate.com>

> On 15 Oct 2014, at 03:01, Faruk Ateş <faruk@presentate.com> wrote:
> 
> Can someone explain this section of the @Page specification, specifically, _why_ the declaration must be ignored:
> 
> If a size <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#size> property declaration is qualified by a ‘width’, ‘height’, ‘device-width’, ‘device-height’, ‘aspect-ratio’, ‘device-aspect-ratio’ or ‘orientation’ media query [MEDIAQ] <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#MEDIAQ> (or other conditional on the size of the paper), then the declaration must be ignored <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#ignore>. Media queries do not honor ‘size <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#size>’: they assume the paper size that would be chosen if no @page rules were specified.

I believe that the logic of this paragraph is to avoid having a @page rule being conditionally applied based on the size of the page, then the @page rule changing that size, then the media query no longer matching, and getting into a loop. However, there are (probably) better ways to deal with this, as highlighted in the issue following this paragraph.

> We have a circumstance where this is preventing us from being able to provide the user the desired solutions to her problem. […]

If I understood what you’re doing correctly, I believe that if we changed to what is suggested in that issue instead of the current text, your scenario would work out fine.

 - Florian
Received on Friday, 24 October 2014 05:54:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:25 UTC