- 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