- From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) <jim.bigelow@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:19:02 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
L. David Baron wrote: > Not as far as I know. Keywords are identifiers -- they're > just identifiers that are known in advance and have special > meaning for some properties. > > Anything else would be a complete disaster for forward-compatibility. > Okay, so the page name in the @page is an identifier and auto is an identifier. I still think it the description of the @page rule should remain as it is now and not as Ernest suggested: Ernest wrote: > [ current description ] > Name: page > Value: auto | <identifier> > Initial: auto > > becomes: > > Name: page > Value: <identifier> > Initial: auto Apparently auto is a polymorphic (I had to slip that word it) keyword/identifier that, as you suggest is a synonym for the unnamed page context. This allows you to say "page: auto" instead of "page: " It would appear that 1. any well-formed identifier can be used a page name. 2. the identifier auto means when used in the page property the unknown page name. 3. you can say something like "@page display" and "page: display" without any ill effects So where does that leave the original issue? Ernest wrote: > @page auto { /*A set of rules for unnamed pages */} > > Will it apply as the comment indicates or will it not apply > to anything since "auto" is not an identifier? The answer depends on how auto is interpreted in the page command. @page auto defines a page named auto that cannot be referenced since page: auto is the unnamed page. We could say that auto, when used in the context of "@page auto" references the unnamed page, or we could say it references the page "auto" that cannot be otherwise used--this seems wasteful and unusable. I vote for making "@page auto" reference the unnamed page. -- Jim Bigelow
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2004 20:20:26 UTC