- From: Syntactic: Jim Wilkinson <syntactic@btinternet.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:45:03 -0000
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>, W3C:;
> I don't know that I'd go as far as saying that it was what was intended > to > be used (I don't recall what was intended), but it is something that > would > work, as far as I can tell. >> ... I take it that it is unlikely that CSS21 will be amended to make >> its method clearer since CSS3 Paged Media will provide a better method >> once browsers start to offer experimental support for the CR. > > What exactly would you want amending? I think you've demonstrated my point, Ian. I respect CSS WG members as the ultimate spec experts. If it's not clear to you whether or how CSS2/21 provides for the implementation of printed page headers (and perhaps footers), then content authors - and even authors of CSS teaching material - certainly are unlikely to figure it out. Perhaps the browser implementers were also unclear, hence the failure of the @page/negative margin method. The position:fixed text in 9.3.1 strongly implies (to my mind) the intention to provide for printed headers, even though the example (oddly) is of a fixed screen header. The implication has been taken up by several contributors to css-d who suggest the method in response to questions, as, indeed, has Eric himself. I accept that the specs are not themselves teaching material but a degree of "informative" explanation would be very desirable for all parties. There's plenty of precedent. As I said, I accept that it is probably too late to be worth amending CSS21 CR in this way since CSS3 will shortly (I hope) introduce a different and much better method. Clearly, that's the WG's decision. Best, -- Jim Wilkinson Cardiff, Wales UK Opera e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 16:45:45 UTC