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 at pwg.org [mailto:owner-xp at pwg.org] On Behalf Of
> BIGELOW,JIM (HP-Boise,ex1)
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:51 PM
> To: xp at 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 at w3.org> about media names.
>> Comments?
>> Jim Bigelow,
> CSS Print Profile editor
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request at w3.org> [mailto:www-style-request at w3.org] On Behalf Of Ernest Cline
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 9:43 PM
> To: Bjoern Hoehrmann
> Cc: www-style at w3.org> Subject: Re: [css3-page] examples in 3.3.2 (page size) are
> 'US-centric'(?)
>>>>>>> > [Original Message]
> > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net>
> > To: <ernestcline at mindspring.com>
> > Cc: <www-style at 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.
>