7

I've followed the steps in this article to arrange my page for printing. However, only a couple of things seem to actually work. I can't get selectors such as @top-center to work at all in Chrome, Firefox or Opera, even though caniuse says it should work in most major browsers.

Has this been quietly abandoned or deprecated?

I'm pretty sure it's correct, but I'll post my CSS here for reference anyway:

@page {
  @bottom-right {
      content: "...";
  }
}

The content doesn't show up anywhere.

BoltClock
  • 700,868
  • 160
  • 1,392
  • 1,356
shawnseanshaun
  • 1,071
  • 1
  • 13
  • 25
  • The WD that is linked to by the article is from 2013. The CSSWG doesn't tend to keep their WDs up to date, not even publishing yearly revisions, so the WD should indeed be considered obsolete. The [ED](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-page-3) was just updated a week ago. – BoltClock Sep 06 '17 at 16:10
  • 1
    @BoltClock Ah, thanks for the updated version. I guess that does answer my original question, though my CSS does appear to match the updated docs (and still doesn't work). But that's another issue. If you answer with the link to the updated docs I'll mark it as accepted. – shawnseanshaun Sep 06 '17 at 16:13
  • 1
    As far as your CSS not working, https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-paged-media indicates that supposedly Chrome at least supports that spec, and that Firefox and IE/Edge support everything except the `size` property. But I dunno maybe overall that just shows basic support for `@page`. – sideshowbarker Sep 06 '17 at 23:14
  • 1
    Anyway, in general if you want more-granular reports about browser support for CSS specs that what you can get at https://caniuse.com/, you can look through http://wpt.fyi/css and the various other `css-*` subdirectories at http://wpt.fyi/. Those all show up-to-date (daily) tests results of actually running tests in all major browsers. Unfortunately though http://wpt.fyi/ doesn’t show test results for the Paged Media spec. There are some tests at http://w3c-test.org/css/css-page-3/ you can run yourself, but those tests all require you to print pages out and manually check them – sideshowbarker Sep 06 '17 at 23:19

1 Answers1

6

The WD that is linked to by the article is from 2013. The CSSWG doesn't tend to keep their WDs at w3.org/TR up to date despite implementations rapidly updating themselves to match the editor's drafts (ED). They don't even publish yearly revisions. This is true not only of css-page-3, but also selectors-4, and prior to its rewrite css-content was left abandoned for over 10 years.

EDs tend to be updated regularly, sometimes even nightly. For example, the css-page-3 ED was just updated a week ago, so while the WD is collecting dust, the module itself hasn't been abandoned and is in fact in active development.

BoltClock
  • 700,868
  • 160
  • 1,392
  • 1,356
  • Yeah in general you can’t safely trust anything under `https://www.w3.org/TR` to necessarily be up to date. These days, for better or worse, editor’s drafts are most often what browser implementors actually implement from. Browser projects don’t wait to implement until something’s published under `https://www.w3.org/TR`. So at least for browser specs, if you read an editor’s draft, you can at least trust that you’re reading the same spec that browser implementors are currently reading and working from, and that it has the latest spec-bug fixes, etc., that the spec authors have committed. – sideshowbarker Sep 06 '17 at 22:52