XP Mail Archive: RE: XP> CSS Print Profile's size property t

RE: XP> CSS Print Profile's size property to accept media names?

From: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1) (jim.bigelow@hp.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 22:40:43 EST

  • Next message: BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1): "XP> FW: [css-print]: add image-orientation 0, 90, 180, 270 to enhance d layout"

    I forgot the references:

    [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-print/
    [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/

    Jim

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: owner-xp@pwg.org [mailto:owner-xp@pwg.org] On Behalf Of
    > BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)
    > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:51 PM
    > To: xp@pwg.org
    > Subject: XP> CSS Print Profile's size property to accept media names?
    >
    >
    > Hello,
    >
    > The Last Call period of the W3C's CSS Print Profile [1] ends
    > on January 31, 2004. The Last Call period of the W3C CSS3
    > Paged Media Module [2] ends on the same date. [2] extends
    > the size property to accept media names, I suggest that [1]
    > also be extended to accept media names in the size property.
    >
    > Currently there is a brisk discussion on www-style@w3.org
    > about media names.
    >
    > Comments?
    >
    > Jim Bigelow,
    > CSS Print Profile editor
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: www-style-request@w3.org
    > [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ernest Cline
    > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 9:43 PM
    > To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
    > Cc: www-style@w3.org
    > Subject: Re: [css3-page] examples in 3.3.2 (page size) are
    > 'US-centric'(?)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > [Original Message]
    > > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
    > > To: <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
    > > Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
    > > Date: 1/19/2004 5:27:11 PM
    > > Subject: Re: [css3-page] examples in 3.3.2 (page size) are
    > > 'US-centric'(?)
    > >
    > > * Ernest Cline wrote:
    > > >I don't get your point. W3C specs such as XHTML aren't revised
    > > >whenever another language is added to ISO 639 or another
    > MIME type is
    > > >registered
    > with
    > > >the IETF. Rather they just reference the standard and
    > mention where
    > > >one can get the latest list of registered values. Why then should
    > > >CSS3 Page
    > need
    > > >to be revised when the IEEE PWG accepts a new standard paper size?
    > >
    > > A CSS user agent would be expected to support new keywords
    > out of the
    > > box while a Voice Browser would not be expected to support speech
    > > synthesis for a new language or a browser a new image format just
    > > because of new registered language tags or MIME types. If the page
    > > dimensions can be inferred from the keyword that would not be a
    > > problem, but then I don't get the point of using
    > >
    > > size: na_letter_8.5x11in;
    > >
    > > (a keyword I would probably have to look up first) instead of
    > >
    > > size: 8.5in 11in;
    > >
    > > As an author, what's my benefit if this is added to css3-page?
    >
    > Well first off, you should be able to use just
    >
    > size: na_letter ;
    >
    > or if you can't remember the short name, then altho not
    > strictly kosher, a UA should be able to understand either:
    >
    > size: custom_xyzzy_8.5x11in;
    >
    > or:
    >
    > size: us_letter_8.5x11in;
    >
    > as referring to 8.5" x 11" paper.
    >
    > The main one advantage this gives an author is that it uses
    > a standard way of referring to page sizes so that if you are
    > also dealing with other types of documents than CSS
    > stylesheets, then if they also follow that standard, you
    > would only have to refer to one standard.
    >
    > I will admit that given the sheer number of keywords (165 different
    > standard paper sizes in that standard if I counted correctly)
    > it would be unwieldy to require that all 165 short names
    > (without the dimensions) be supported by all UA's. However,
    > since there are only a few common paper sizes, it should be
    > practical to require a basic set of keywords (or even
    > restrict the list of allowed short keywords to just those
    > keywords.)
    >
    > What follows is what I feel to be a likely maximum minimum:
    >
    > na_invoice (5.5" x 8.5")
    > na_letter (8.5" x 11")
    > na_legal (8.5" x 14")
    > na_ledger (11" x 17")
    >
    > iso_a5 (148mm x 210mm)
    > iso_b5 (176mm x 250mm)
    > iso_a4 (210mm x 297mm)
    > iso_b4 (250mm x 353mm)
    > iso_a3 (297mm x 420 mm)
    >
    > For general printing, we probably don't need to have CSS
    > support keywords for envelope sizes, and I don't know how
    > commonly the non-ISO paper sizes used by China, Taiwan, or
    > Japan that are referenced by the IEEE standard are used with
    > computers. As it is, with these nine I probably have overkill
    > for general use, as "na_letter" and "iso_a4" are certainly
    > the two most used sizes of computer paper. "na_invoice" and
    > "iso_a5" are most likely to be used when a user has chosen to
    > print a document in a 2-up format.
    >
    > In any event, as I have said, if the decision is made to only
    > support a few keywords instead of the full IEEE PWG standard
    > for paper sizes, I strongly want the keywords chosen to
    > conform with the <class-name> "_" <size-name> format so that
    > if it should be decided in a future version of the Paged
    > Media Module to support this standard there would not be any
    > legacy keywords that don't follow that form that would have
    > to be supported as well.
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 22:40:59 EST