W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [css-page] positioning of crop marks

From: Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 03:34:38 -0500
To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
Message-ID: <CEAE7B27.417D0%david.cramer@hbgusa.com>
On 11/16/13 6:30 PM, "Cramer, Dave" <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com<mailto:Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>> wrote:

On 11/16/13 8:47 AM, "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com<mailto:jjc@jclark.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com<mailto:Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>> wrote:

So, I would propose adding three properties to css3-page, in addition to bleed and marks:

Name: mark-offset

I would suggest that you don't use the term 'mark' without qualifying it in some way (e.g. printer/trim/crop). At the character/glyph level 'mark' has another very-well established meaning (combining marks).


Thank you for bringing this up. I would propose printer-mark-offset since we're not currently doing separate values for crop vs cross marks.

On second thought, given these values only operate inside @page rules, I think the possibility of confusion is minimal. The name "marks" has a long history in this context (including the original CSS2 spec), and is used in existing implementations.



This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 08:35:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC