View Single Post
Old 07-16-2014, 02:57 PM   #163
Rev. Bob
Wizard
Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Rev. Bob ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Rev. Bob's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,760
Karma: 9918418
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Here on the perimeter, there are no stars
Device: Kobo H2O, iPad mini 3, Kindle Touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybmole View Post
....what about all the big professional puiblishing houses who are explicitly using widows: 0; orphans: 0 then ?
As I said, sloppy code that ought to be fixed. (See also all the ebooks that set Regular Text to "small" or somewhere around 90% when it should be "medium" or 100%. There's no excuse for that, and it's far more common than weird W&O values.) That said, I'll defer to DNSB's survey; this does not seem to be anywhere close to as common as you claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
As for valid, epubcheck 3.0.1 validates widows and orphans with a value of zero as valid code.
Then epubcheck is either not looking at CSS or has a bug in that respect. I suspect it is the former.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arspr View Post
Let's summarize:

If you don't like what w&o do and you want to "disable" them, the correct and official way is setting them to 1. 0 is frequently used even by some publishers, and it usually works as intended, but nevertheless it is not "officialy" supported, so if I were you I'd use 1.
Spot on.
Rev. Bob is offline   Reply With Quote