Minutes Paris F2F 2015-08-26 Part II: Defining Pagination, CSS Priorities from DigiPub, CSS Inline
Defining Pagination
- dauwhe asked the group how to proceed with pagination since it was a major priority of digital publishing.
- There wasn’t consensus on overflow triggering pagination and instead it was decided that the first step would be a model for how pagination works.
- There were several different mental models from members of the group, but it ultimately was decided that the first problem was to figure out and define the relationship between the viewport and the doc tree and from that definition the group could then move forward on explaining how regions and fragmentation use that relationship to become paginated view.
- Resolved: Create a new module describing connection between viewport and doc tree and explaining page boxes with name TBA. plinss, Florian, Rossen are editors.
Full Minutes || Spec Referenced
CSS Priorities from DigiPub
- The group reviewed the document from the DigiPub Interest Group (Available Here) and had several pieces of feedback:
- There was a desire expressed for the list to be more concrete proposals and less of a laundry list.
- It was recommended to ask for
font-variant
instead of font-feature-settings
as it’s a better property. [font-feature-settings
was only intended to fill in the gaps that font-variant
hadn’t filled, not as a cheap substitute for font-variant
]
- Using the content property on elements received a lot of interest, but may be difficult for accessibility reasons. Also there was evidence that browsers had tried it before and had to walk back the changes due to Web compat.
- It was expressed that mathematical layout will be hard, particularly due to interaction with font shaping.
- There was interest in the problem of tracking reading location across devices, but no conclusive proposal.
Full Minutes
CSS Inline
- There was discussion on if the multiple values of
alignment-baseline
are necessary.
alphabethic
, central
, and auto
were agreed to be necessary.
top
, bottom
, and center
were considered awkward because they weren’t actually baselines
- There was no decision on the others and they will need further conversation
- Google asked that figuring out glyph boundaries in
initial-letter
be marked as at-risk because it will be time-consuming for them to implement.
- Issues that need to be added to the spec are:
- What happens when baseline is not in font
- Add
width
and height
to the property for initial-letter
- Add a complete list of things that can be applied to
initial-letter
- Which baseline keywords do we need to keep?
- Mark
initial-letter-wrap
as at-risk
- Where do
before-edge
and after-edge
come from?
- Resolved: Add a
length
value to initial-letter-wrap
- Resolved: Publish an updated WD of CSS Inline
Full Minutes || Spec Referenced
« Previous article
Next article »