stylesheet for screenplays - @page example ?

David J Patrick <davidjpatrick (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca> wrote:

The ScreenplayCSS is flawed, for several reasons;
-overuse of <div id= tags

Damn right, all those IDs should be classes. This won't bother the
CSS, but it's very broken HTML.

-doesn't scale screen resolutions (convert from px to in, pt ?)
-no media="print" (how much could be shared between "screen" & "print")

Not much. You go about it (screen and print formatting) two different
ways.

Take MyNovel.txt, for example. To print this as a "manuscript" to send
to a publisher you'd want a specific format:-

- A monospaced font giving exactly:
- 60 characters per line,
- 25 lines per page,
- 1500 characters (250 words) per page.

To achieve this in print you measure the size of the paper, deduct the
margins, then divide by 60 to get the font-size that results in 60
characters per line. Then set a line-height that results in 25 lines
per page.

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}

That's all there is to it; as usual for screen, no mention of
font-size at all. So the stylesheet just looks something like:

@media print, projection, screen {
* {
font-family: "Courier New", monospace !important;
line-height: 2;
}
}

@media print {
* { font-size: 12pt /* or whatever */ !important;
}

@media projection, screen {
p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}
}

--
"He's a kind of super-criminal, he can travel through time and space."

On 20 Jun 2004 22:51:41 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}

If only 1em = 1 character!

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:51:41 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

You go about it (screen and print formatting) two different
ways.

To achieve this in print you measure the size of the paper, deduct the
margins, then divide by 60 to get the font-size that results in 60
characters per line. Then set a line-height that results in 25 lines
per page.

The cardinal rule of screenplay output is Courier 12pt. Knowing this,
would the page not be best defined in points ?

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

...or whatever each element definition calls for.. which is most often
described in inches from a margin.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}
}
That's all there is to it; as usual for screen, no mention of font-size
at all. So the stylesheet just looks something like:

@media print, projection, screen {
* {
font-family: "Courier New", monospace !important; line-height: 2;
}
}
}
@media print {
* { font-size: 12pt /* or whatever */ !important;
}
}
@media projection, screen {
p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}
}

And if I wanted to have TWO screen layouts (one rigid and one readable)
could I add

@media screen rigid {
* {font size: 12/1 !important;
}

Do you agree that the @page spec (and associated break & number rules) are
too unsupported to use ?

thanks Wolfgang,
djp

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 22:51:41 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

David J Patrick <davidjpatrick (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca> wrote:

The ScreenplayCSS is flawed, for several reasons;
-overuse of <div id= tags

Damn right, all those IDs should be classes. This won't bother the
CSS, but it's very broken HTML.

I know I'm exibiting my ignorance here, but in replacing those <div id=
tags I simply use;

..dialog{ /* . instead of # */
margin:0pt 110pt 0pt 85pt: /* actual pixel to point conversion to be
worked out */
}

and in the html
<p class="dialog">Words words words</p>

That simple ?

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

On 20 Jun 2004 22:51:41 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}


If only 1em = 1 character!

That's the whole point of using monospaced fonts, Neal.

Just send your grovelling retraction on good quality paper suitable
for framing, okay?

--
"Join me, Doctor? We could rule together."

wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au (Wolfgang Wildeblood) wrote:

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
On 20 Jun 2004 22:51:41 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}


If only 1em = 1 character!

That's the whole point of using monospaced fonts, Neal.

But 1em is still the height of the font, not the width of a character.

Try it for yourself.
<div style="width: 10em; font-family: monospace; padding: 0; border:
1px solid red;">1234567890</div>
See how much wider the div is than the text?

Just send your grovelling retraction on good quality paper suitable
for framing, okay?

I'm sure Neal looks forward to receiving that from you.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>

Tim wrote:

Pt should be fine for printing, but not for the screen.

David J Patrick <davidjpatrick (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca> posted:

would "in" be the most portable ? that's what the screenplay format is
usually describe in, anyhow.

You're probably best not to make font specifications in the screen
styling... remove all obstacles that make browser reading a pain).

It's important to mimic the look, and especially page count, of a script.
I see the more rigid screen definition as a colaborative/ preview tool.
A reader who can give your project the "green light" will be reading
a printout, and it had better adhere to specs. I agree that there should
be a style-free mode though. another CSS definition; media="screen-free" ?

The problems stems from 12 point text on paper having a defined meaning
(it'll be the same size, no matter who printed it), but 12 pt text on a
screen doesn't have any standard rendering: It'll be different sizes on
different screens, and rarely the same size as 12 pt printed on paper.

There's that (difference in size), plus that 12 pt text (for instance) may
well be a completely unsuitable size for on-screen reading (it certainly is
here, even 14 pt is just acceptable, yet that'd be huge on paper).

Hence, why I said don't specify a font on screen. It's dead easy for most
browsers to adjust the display of text to suit the person reading it,
providing you haven't fixed the text to a specific size. Some browsers
will allow you to modify fixed font sizes, but many don't.

For the screen styling, stick to *simplistic* indenting, centering,
bolding, etc., as required by their expectations, and little more.

You can't mimic the page count on screen, as you don't have pages on the
screen. You have something analagous to a continuous roll of paper.

-no automatic page breaks (with automatic numbering ?)

Any clues how to use @page, break rules and numbering ?

You'll have to wait for browsers to be improved. Few have any decent sort
of support for those things. It's generally only the experimental ones
(e.g. Mozilla) that have any support for page media effects.

Can you see a better way to define the ScreenplayCSS page ?

Only as I'd already said before: Very little style rules for the screen
media, no absolute sizes or dimensions for anything. Use appropriate
typing rules for the print media. Though you're still going to be facing a
battle to find a browser that will carve a long HTML file into pages as you
want when you print it. Even worse, is hoping that anything you publish
can be handled as you want by someone else's browser (most people are using
crap browsers - if you believe the stats about MSIE being predominant,
which are probably true).

That makes sense, I have noticed, however a distinct lack of "html2pdf"
avalable for linux. If I can "force" a reliable printout, from html,
that would be great.

You probably want to look into a program designed for text manipulation (a
real word processor, not a desk top publisher). Probably something like
Tex or Latex (note I've never used them, merely read about them). In the
past, I've written programs for custom handling of text. It was easier,
for me then, than trying to find something ready made, and I had my source
material in a manageable format too (that's important).

There's no ability to "force" anything in WWW authoring...

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

But to get the same formatting on screen (i.e. line breaks in the same
places), you simply specify directly that you want 60 characters per
line.

p {
width: 60em !important;
margin: auto;
}

Neal <neal413 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

If only 1em = 1 character!

Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

That's the whole point of using monospaced fonts, Neal.

Steve Pugh <steve (AT) pugh (DOT) net> posted:

But 1em is still the height of the font, not the width of a character.

And... It's only a *width*, it doesn't mean 60 characters across the page,
it means fill the page with text to the width of 60 ems. You could well
have 70 characters across the page. Even with a monospaced font, each
character is still smaller than the width of an em (which has various vague
and contradictory definitions).

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Tim wrote:

The problems stems from 12 point text on paper having a defined meaning

CSS-specified 12 point text has that "defined meaning" *everywhere*.
The fact is, though, that typical browsers don't implement it.

(it'll be the same size, no matter who printed it), but 12 pt text on a
screen doesn't have any standard rendering: It'll be different sizes on
different screens, and rarely the same size as 12 pt printed on paper.

That's no fault of the pt unit as such. But even if all computer
displays were properly calibrated, it *still* wouldn't be the best
choice in a WWW context for a screen display.

So, to summarise: it's inappropriate for two reasons: 1. it mostly
doesn't work to specification, and 2. even if it -did- work to
specification, it wouldn't be the best choice, as a means of
communicating content to web readers.

However, in this special case it seems the author is trying to
visually reproduce the appearance of a paper document. That's a
special (and in some sense perverse - no offence intended) way of
using HTML, with or without CSS. I'm not sure what to suggest - *any*
choice is going to be a compromise. Possibly a reasonable choice
would be to provide a visual-reproduction in PDF, and an alternative
HTML-based version designed for accessibility to the content.

cheers

On 21 Jun 2004 02:12:17 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood
<wolfgangwildeblood (AT) yahoo (DOT) com.au> wrote:

Just send your grovelling retraction on good quality paper suitable
for framing, okay?

Sorry it's been flushed