RE: [css3-page] examples in 3.3.2 (page size) are 'US-centric'(?)

Hi Ernest,

> I said discount, not ignore.  You have a vested interest in seeing that
> the CR follows what you have already implemented which raises the
> possibility of a conflict of interest.  That is one reason why it is
> suggested that private extensions to CSS such as those that Yes
> Logic uses have a vendor specific prefix.  That suggestion has
> been pointed out to you before IIRC,

Are you serious?

@page { size: yeslogic-a4 }
@page { size: microsoft-a4 }
@page { size: moz-a4 }
@page { size: -o-a4 }

Of course we will not introduce a vendor specific keyword to represent the
A4 paper size. It is an international standard (!) and hardly likely to
change on a whim. Vendor specific prefixes are not necessary for things
that can only be implemented in one possible way. The following example is
so perfectly obvious and idiomatic that it would be crazy to remove it:

@page { size: A4 }

I strongly believe that this should be in the standard, not because we
have already implemented it, but because it is a good idea. You are
putting the cart before the horse: we implemented it *because* we believe
that it is a good idea, and we wish to see it in the standard for the same

If iso-a4 is added to the standard we will definitely support it.  
However, we will not remove support for "a4", as the good reasons for
having it remain valid. Our implementation of this keyword without a
vendor prefix is also valid, as the standard will never give the "a4"  
keyword a meaning other than ISO A4 paper size.

> If the module goes beyond just A4 and letter, I am of the firm opinion
> that the B sizes should be included as well, and that means that
> a prefix is needed to indicate whether iso-b4 or jis-b4 is intended.

We do not currently support the JIS paper sizes, but if they are widely
used we would be happy to add iso-b* and jis-b* keywords.

Best regards,


YesLogic Prince prints XML!

Received on Friday, 23 January 2004 20:19:34 UTC