- From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 01:04:30 -0500
- To: "Ernest Cline" <ernestcline@mindspring.com>, "W3C CSS List" <www-style@w3.org>
> [Original Message] > From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com> > To: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org> > Date: 12/19/2003 7:23:35 PM > Subject: [CSS3-Page] 30 comments I have on the draft, mostly editorial > > Comments on CSS3 Page > > These comments are mostly editorial in nature; the exceptions are > comments [9], [14], [21], [22], [25], and [29]. > > I don't expect a response on any of these except the six comments > listed above. I haven't gotten any sort of a response on even those six, which I will attribute to the holidays. Now that the holidays are beginning to be behind us, I'm going to repeat those six comments here, and if that still fails to elicit a response, then next week I'll start repeating them one at a time. I don't mind a negative response, but a total lack of response makes me wonder if they were even read. > [9] Section 3.1 "Margin box" > Was having 'left-center', 'left-top', etc. rejected because they were > too kitchen sinkish, or were they not considered? > [14] Section 3.2 > This section and the accompanying terminology assumes that the standard > Western practice of binding so that the spine is to the left is the only > standard. This is NOT the case. Standard Japanese practice is to bind > printed matter so that the spine is to the right. Given the unfortunate > choice of :left and :right in CSS 2, I don't have any expectation of > changing the pseudoclasses, but the explanatory material should be > rewritten so as to be supportive of Japanese binding. > [21] Section 3.3.2 > Having opened Pandora's box with "A4" and "letter", I feel that the > standard should either (1) explain why the decision was made to limit > the listed sizes to just these two, (2) drop these sizes, or (3) change > the list of predefined sizes and explain why those were chosen. > > With "A4" and "letter" as part of the standard, it does not take much > imagination to suppose that there will be those who try to extend the > standard on their own. It would be best if the standard tries to > control these non-standard extensions is some manner. > > For example, one could justify supporting only the ISO defined paper > sizes (ISO 216). envelope sizes (ISO 269), etc. by way of non-hyphenated > keywords. Then if national sizes need to be predefined as well, the > standard could specify a convention such as: > <country-code> "-" <name> > Thus, we could have "us-letter" "ca-p4" or "ja-b4" if including keywords > for national standard paper sizes be deemed necessary. > [22] Section 3.3.2 <length> > Why does the page context have no notion of fonts? Couldn't this be > the same as the notion held by ":root" exterior to this @-rule? Or does > this introduce some sort of loop that isn't apparent to me? Granted, > specifying page margins with respect to font size may not be a good > thing to do most of the time, but I fail to see why it is impossible. > [25] Section 3.6 > With :left and :right always being used even when printing single-sided, > how is an author supposed to be able to specify that he wants one set of > rules used when printing single-sided and a different set of rules when > printing double-sided? The easiest solution seems to be to specify two > new media types for single-sided and double-sided paged printing (and > possibly a third for printing using a continuous non-paged roll, altho > that could be said to be outside the scope of this module). > [29] Section 8 > What is the motivation for defining rotation as <integer> instead of > as an <angle>? If the intent is to simplify the task for the UA, > limiting the potential values to "0", "90", "180" and "270" would be > much more useful than limiting the values to integer degrees.
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 01:04:30 UTC