- From: Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:17:26 +0100 (MET)
- To: "Pawson, David" <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-hc@w3.org, bbos@w3.org
Pawson, David writes:
> In the current propsal, you can use a
> normal CSS selector to "mark" the elements which should serve as
> headers:
>
> H1 { running-head: chapter }
> P.caption { running-head: section }
>
> The marked elements can then be referred to from the header
> definition:
>
> @page :header {
> content: first(chapter), none, first(section);
> }
>
>
> For my two cents:
>
> Would suggest a reversal would make more sense.
> Instead of saying
> 'This element should go into the header' when I meet the element,
>
> How about
> 'for the running header include ....' then specify what
> is to go in?
Right. I agree that your proposal is more intuitive. However, it would
result in having selectors (or a similar contruct) on the right side.
E.g., one could imagine:
@page :header {
content: first(H1), decimal(pageno), first(H2);
font-variant: small-caps}
}
For simple selectors (as the type selector above) this looks fine, but
for more complex selecetor it starts to get messy:
@page :header {
content: first(BODY H1.chapter), decimal(pageno), first(H2[TITLE]);
font-variant: small-caps}
}
Or, perhaps it's not that bad? Certainly, this would rid us of the
"three-variable" limitation...
-h&kon
H å k o n W i u m L i e
howcome@w3.org http://www.w3.org/people/howcome
World W i d e Web Consortium
Received on Friday, 7 November 1997 18:17:48 UTC