- 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