RE: [css3-page] Last Call Comments on CSS3 Paged Media Module

Don,

Thank you for you comment. It has been assigned issue number 38.

You wrote:
> In section 3.3.2, paper sizes may be specified by dimensions
> or by two key words "A4" and "letter."
> 
> I would suggest that this document use and reference the PWG
> Standard 5101.1-2001 entitled "Media Standardized Names" 
> available from ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5101.1.pdf
> 
> I am not suggesting that all the media sizes listed there be
> allowed but that those required to be allowed be drawn from 
> that standard's list and any extensions be compliant with 
> that standard.
> 

As editor, it is my intention to reference the PWG Standard "Media
Standardized Names" in the CSS3 Page Media Module. However, I have a concern
that this standard limits itself as follows and therefore, may not be
directly applicable to use for potentially human authored documents:

 "The intent of the names defined in this standard is for program to 
 program communication, not for internal use within a program or 
 for program to human display." [1]

In the case of potentially human authored CSS style sheets where a CSS
keyword is used to represent a media size, the current proposal (as of 4
February 2004) is to use the following new CSS keywords that are defined
with Media Size Self-Describing Name from the PWG standard:

Keyword    Media Size Self-Describing Name
 letter	na_letter_8.5x11in
 legal      na_legal_8.5x14in
 ledger     na_ledger_11x17in
 a5         iso_a5_148x210mm
 a4         iso_a4_210x297mm
 a3         iso_a3_297x420mm
 b5         iso_b5_176x250mm
 b4         iso_b4_250x353mm

The new keywords were chosen for readability, clarity, and conciseness--all
import attributes of potentially human authored documents.  The following is
an example usage:

@page { size: a4 }

This example seems preferable to "@page { size: iso_a4_210x297mm }" as the
characters "iso_" and "_210x297mm" do not seem to lead to an improvement in
any of the characteristics mentioned above.

Further comments on this issue are both encouraged and welcomed. Please
respond within seven days, i.e., by 11 February 2004. No response will be
considered tacit approval.

 -- Jim Bigelow, editor

[1] Section 1.1 Scope, ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/standards/pwg5101.1.pdf

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:10:25 UTC