- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:38:32 +0200
- To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, www-style@w3.org
- Cc: w3c-css-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 04:39:06 +0200, Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
wrote:
> The CSS Paged Media specification
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/CR-css3-page-20040225/) is currently unclear
> as to what should happen when multiple page-break-* properties
> accumulate.
You mean that it doesn't say what you want? :-)
> The spec is clear that a :left or :right pseudo-class can
> require that a blank page or surface is generated.
> For example:
> <p>This is a paragraph on page 1.</p>
> <div style="page-break-before">
> <div style="page-break-before">
> The first div causes a page break; does the second div cause
> another page break, putting this content on page 3, or are the page
> breaks collapsed into a single page break so that this is printed on
> page 2?</div>
> </div>
What if I had |div::before { content:'Test.' }| specified in some style
sheet? I assume that in that case they would not collapse? Also, what
happens for cases like:
<div style="page-break-before:always">
<div>
<div style="page-break-before:always">
If such collapsing rules are defined they need to be clear. For your first
example you wouldn't get an empty page for example if the the outermost
<div> has some kind of background image or other decoration.
> Different implementations behave differently, as might be expected. It
> seems that most implementations collapse pages. Notably Opera's does
> not. I propose that the spec be made explicit to require that
> page-break properties collapse such that no empty pages or surfaces are
> generated except for one when needed to get to the next right- or
> left-facing page. Authors can use other means to create blank pages.
> This would make printed results more interoperable.
I'm fine with changing the specification as long as the collapsing
algorithm is clear.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 07:38:49 UTC