W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-page] <page-size> Keywords

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 01:27:30 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-233506098-1468891647-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> I didn’t find relevant documentation for [...] Vivliostyle

As for version 2016.7, Vivliostyle supports all the page sizes 
specified in the spec (and only these):
https://github.com/vivliostyle/vivliostyle.js/blob/64c0766361f87ac9c8c8ddf6aef83a60931da715/resources/validation.txt#L297
 : `a5 | a4 | a3 | b5 | b4 | jis-b5 | jis-b4 | letter | legal | 
ledger`. The dimensions match those specified in 
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-page/#typedef-page-size-page-size

> Since ledger (not tabloid) is currently specified as a portrait 
format, it should be clarified whether the implementations 
(intentionally) are non-comformant there and if it’s a bug in the 
spec.

I believe the spec is clear that all formats are defined in portrait 
orientation, and Vivliostyle's implementation conforms to that.

> I believe it could be beneficial to have <paper-size> accept two 
keywords, an optional one for the system (e.g. JIS) and a mandatory 
one for the size (e.g. B4). 

I don't think I'd be in favor of this approach. It makes it possible 
to specify paper sizes that don't actually exist (`jis ledger`?), and 
while we could certainly define them, I don't see the benefit.

As for including more paper sizes in the spec, it is very cheap to 
implemented and there may be occasional demand, so we wouldn't be 
opposed to it, but it is also very easy for authors to work with 
actual dimensions if they don't have the keywords, so the need isn't 
that pressing either. We have yet to feel market pressure in 
supporting these other sizes, but if/when we do, we'll be sure to 
report back to the CSSWG.

It was different for JIS-B5 and JIS-B4, since there's more demand for 
these than for the unprefixed (implying ISO) B5 and B4, so adding 
there helped alleviate some confusion.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/328#issuecomment-233506098 
using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2016 01:27:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:00 UTC