- From: Peter Moulder <peter.moulder@monash.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:01:39 +1000
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:31:49PM +1000, I wrote: > The argument in favour of the proposed [constraint-violating implementation] > would be speed of implementation (both in the sense of development time and > runtime), combined with a hope that authors will do what they can to make it > unlikely that the changed rule comes into operation for their document. > (Though it isn't entirely within author control if rendering isn't under > author control.) Actually, there is one way to ensure that the changed rule doesn't come into operation: don't specify different page widths! (At least, not within the one named page type.) It's actually not as facetious a comment as it sounds: for all I know, it may well be that the main use cases for different page widths within a given named page type are where the author does control the rendering (or at least can reproduce the rendering environment). pjrm.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 08:02:05 UTC