Thread: ePub 2.0.1?
View Single Post
Old 06-25-2010, 07:41 AM   #8
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse 高貴的老鼠
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 71,524
Karma: 306214458
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: Kindle Voyage
Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski View Post
They're required to 'support' these (as in, I suppose, not crash when encountering them), but not required to cause them to alter the rendering.

...
I disagree.

They are required to use CSS2 selectors to determine which of the style definitions in the CSS2 stylesheet to apply to a particular character or characters. They are required to support all CSS2 selectors in making this selection, including pseudo-elements. This means that if the CSS contains

p {font-weight: normal;}
p:first-letter: {font-weight: bold;}

then they are required to use font-weight:bold in the rendering of the first character in a <p> element.

Now, it may be that a particular renderer can only render one weight of font, in which case the first character will not be different from the rest of the element. But if the rendering system can make such a distinction (in particular, if it does it for other CSS2 style defintions), to be a compliant ePub renderer, it must do so in this case.

I raised this issue myself in the discussions, and this clause was put in to remove any doubt that when 'all selectors' meant all.

If you believe that yours is a valid interpretation of the 2.0.1 draft standard, please suggest a wording that would remove the ambiguity that you see.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote