- 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