Re: [CSS21] 'page' and 'size' removal

On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 9:41:46 PM, Tantek wrote:


TÇ> On 2/25/03 2:23 AM, "Christian Roth" <roth@visualclick.de> wrote:

>> I am working on a CSS based product (so I am an implementor) that is near
>> release (within 1 month). I'm using 'size' for specifying the paper size,
>> custom page selectors for distributing document contents on differently
>> sized/margined pages along an XML instance document and the 'widows'/
>> 'orphans' properties for specifying if widow-/orphan-control is to be
>> turned on in the rendering engine (value >= 2) or not (< 2). I am aware
>> of the fact that the rendering engine (which is out of my control) does
>> not support the full semantics of each of these properties, but based on
>> the declaration the best approximating configuration is used.

TÇ> It is worse than that. It is not just "not support the full
TÇ> semantics" - I don't think there is any rendering engine support
TÇ> for these properties at all.

You need to re-read what he wrote. You assume the rendering engine is
also interpreting the CSS. It is not. His implementation is
interpreting the CS and asking a downstream renderer to render the
result (much as a screen-based implementation asks quickdraw or
darqwin or X or GDI+ to render the result).


>> Checking our implementation just recently against the CSS21 WD, I found
>> that the mentioned properties are to be dropped. So my question simply is
>> whether I should make them proprietary properties (see my earlier
>> questions on this issue) prior to release to decouple them from any
>> further work done on CSS in the paged media realm, or if we can leave
>> them as is without fear to have them semantically clash in the future,
>> when stylesheets written for our product (an XML+CSS-to-RTF converter)
>> will/should be used unchanged with other, possibly future products.

If you are implementing these properties they you should give feedback
on that implementation to the working group.

TÇ> In my opinion it is very bad to export (output) properties which
TÇ> do not currently work in implementations.

But he has an implementation and is not exporting properties, he is
importing them.

TÇ> You have no way of verifying that you are exporting something that
TÇ> makes any sense.

A ruler? I mean he just has to print the resulting RTF and there is
his rendered output.

TÇ> Authoring tools should NOT [.... snip ...]

(... its not an authoring tool ...)

TÇ> export tags, properties, values etc. that are not
TÇ> properly supported by implementations already,

Sorry but this is nonsensical, even if it were relevant in this case
which it clearly is not.

TÇ> For any property for which you are *not* testing against
TÇ> implementations (e.g. those paged media properties), I think it is
TÇ> much safer to use something with a vendor prefix for your own
TÇ> purposes.

Well I guess he is testing his own rendering implementation so, your
criteria do not apply.

TÇ> That seems reasonable. In general I think it is better to avoid
TÇ> properties that lack any UA support, or, if you must use such
TÇ> "work in progress" properties (which much of CSS2 can still be
TÇ> considered), use them with a vendor prefix, e.g. -foocorp-orphans

That is questionable advice. Tantek, if you want to follow through
with that then I suggest you ask the director propose to the
membership that CSS2 be withdrawn as a recommendation. Failing which,
anyone who wants to implement any part of it is at perfect liberty to
do so.

People do not have to wait for something to be reliably implemented in
an HTML browser, as Tantek radically suggests. Luckily other parts of
the Web are evolving a lot faster than the legacy-enslaved html
browser market.

So if people want to make XML+CSS implementations then more power to
them.

TÇ> All that being said, you could help move things along by reviewing
TÇ> the CSS3 Paged Media draft, and the proposals for footnotes etc.
TÇ> and provide feedback to this list. Better yet, consider joining
TÇ> W3C (I didn't check to see if you were already a member), and
TÇ> working directly on such drafts/proposals in the CSS working
TÇ> group.

That on the other hand is sound advice.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 19:28:04 UTC