W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [css3-page] Proposal: Making variable page area widths in a ?document optional

From: Yuzo Fujishima <yuzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:00:11 +0900
Message-ID: <9124e09b1002221800l4ab93d86v51b759f122860353@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Linss, Peter" <peter.linss@hp.com>
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, Peter,

Thank you for the information.
Has the resolution been codified somewhere?
(It would be nice if it were referred to from the Paged Media spec.)


On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Linss, Peter <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Yuzo Fujishima" <yuzo@google.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:55 AM
>> To: <www-style@w3.org>
>> Subject: [css3-page] Proposal: Making variable page area widths in a
>> document      optional

>>> Hi,

>>> By using :left, :right, or :first pseudo-classes, it is currently
>>> possible
>>> to make
>>> left, right, or first pages have different page area widths.

>>> In the following example, right pages are 10cm narrower than left pages:
>>> @page :left {margin-left: 3cm;margin-right: 4cm;}
>>> @page :right {margin-left: 9cm;margin-right: 8cm;}

>> I do not think that it is even technically feasible to have a container
>> with
>> variable width in CSS.
>> At least there is no definition of blocks having "jagged" sides as e.g.
>> tall
>> <table width=100%> spanning multiple pages.

>> I believe that we should declare "behavior undefined" for variable page
>> area
>> boxes on different pages.
>> Or at least "vendor specific" if some printer smart enough will be able
>> to
>> come up with the idea of how to render jagged tables with correct
>> pagination
>> in the future.

> The CSS W/G discussed this back in November of 2008.

> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Nov/0024.html

> "RESOLVED: Adopt proposal that page layout on current page assumes ICB
>            matches current page size and contents lay out accordingly,
>            restrict requirement to SHOULD and applying for non-BFC
>            elements in normal flow, all others being undefined"

> Peter

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 02:01:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:43 UTC