stylesheet for screenplays - @page example ?

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:16:20 +0000, John M. Gamble wrote:

Doesn't the Css Zen Garden <http://www.csszengarden.com> do that to
extreme?

They sure do !
They may be using javascript to achieve that though
Nope ! all css. They are using <a href="#"
onclick="setFixedStyle('default.css');">Chosen Style</a>

Can the all 3 styles, including the alternate, be within the same
stylesheet ? (I will set up 3 externals, but I can see a case for internal.)

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

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?

I thought Neal was waffling about how not all lines will have the
same number of characters. (And I still suspect he might have been.)
Don't be so vague Neal.

But even my dog knows characters in Courier fonts are 3/5 of an em
wide (How do they fit the capital M in, he wonders idly?). So my 60em
stated above gives 100 characters. I ommitted an important step:
multiply the required number of characters by 3/5 to get the width.

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

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

Sorry, Neal. (So how come you didn't give the correct number?)


--
"Really, Jo. Don't tell me you failed Latin as well as science?"

Christoph Paeper <christoph.paeper (AT) nurfuerspam (DOT) de> wrote:

*BenOne©* <nosp@m.thanks.mate>:
Neal wrote:

If only 1em = 1 character!

I learned that the hard way. It's a pity there isn't a standard measurement
for a character.

Well, Mozilla uses the proprietary 'ch', but for what it's worth, 'ex' comes
much closer to the average character width than 'em', even if it's
implemented in its simplest form ("0.5em").

Well Mozilla supposedly implements ex properly (i.e. independently of
em) but yes other browsers just substitute 0.5em, which is as good as
useless. That might be closer to the average character width than em
is, but it's not nearly close enough to use as a direct substitute
without correction. In their defence, it shouldn't be up to browsers
to perform low-level OS functions like dealing with fonts, anyway.

It's just another example of how misguided CSS is.

My theory is that ex is most useful in setting the leading between
lines, which should be some preferred multiple of 1ex, causing the
leading to adjust appropriately with different typefaces.
Unfortunately, CSS doesn't use "leading" but the misguided
"line-height". So it would need mathematical functions, something
like:-

* { line-height: 1em + 0.67ex }

Which it also doesn't have. So CSS as it stands is pretty damn broken.

--
Stephen Poley has a page about "ex" on his site,
but I can't recall the URL OTTOMH.

David J Patrick wrote:

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

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 ?

Yes.

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

Well some smart-alec people have pointed out that I missed a step, but
they didn't look that closely or they would have seen that I also
missed a crucial bracket. Here's the corrected post:-

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.

By multiplying 60 times the width of 1 character (3/5em) for a total
of 36em.

p {
width: 60em !important; <-- spot the mistake?
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;
}

Anyone who copy/pasted this example would have quickly discovered a
missing bracket here :-( the @media print block was never closed. Ooh
look, there it is:

}

@media projection, screen {
p {
width: 36em !important; /* 36em = 60 characters */
margin: auto;
}
}

--
Don't Ebay and newsgroup at the same time, it's too distracting.

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:34:51 +0930, Tim wrote:

Tim wrote:

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.

Yet it should be possible to represent pages, one after another (as in
http://s92415866.onlinehome.us/files...playCSSv2.html) and if layout
and size were !important and imposed, break-before and break-after rules
could do a reasonable job, couldn't they ?

The page break properties simply don't apply to screens, that's all
there is to it. Get Opera, if you don't already have it, the page
break properties are applied (somewhat unreliably) in full screen
("@media projection") mode.

If it's a situation of a limited number of users and you can say, "Hey
guys you need this software," Opera is going to be more suitable for
this application than Mozilla would.

Then you should be able to concoct a screen format based on characters
as I wrote previously (just ignore the smart-alecs), that by simply
pressing F11 will look more like the printed format.

You don't need to mess about with multiple stylesheets or switching
menus - killfile anyone who says you do.

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.

Well then, for this application (and I can't believe I'm saying this)
perhaps a "best viewed with Mozilla" flag is in order.

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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:57:49 +0100, Chris Morris wrote:
Possibly what I'd suggest is:
Stylesheet 1: Media="screen"
Alternate Stylesheet 2: Media="screen"
Stylesheet 3: Media="print"

yeah, /that's/ what I meant !
What I don't know (yet) is the mechanism to call that Alternate Sheet.

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/main.css"
title="{description}" media="screen">

<link rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/alt.css"
title="{description}" media="screen">

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/print.css"
title="{description}" media="print">

The alternate stylesheet implementation fails on page changes in every
browser I've seen that does it at all. But my impression of this is
that you intend it to be a single long file anyway, where that isn't a
problem.

Your impression is correct. Perhaps Stylesheet2 is invoked from a CSSmenu
in Stylesheet1.

How to get at them varies from browser to browser - IE doesn't support
it, modern Mozilla variants tend to and Opera does. Can't remember
about Konqueror.

[From other post]

Can the all 3 styles, including the alternate, be within the same
stylesheet ? (I will set up 3 externals, but I can see a case for internal.)

The alternate can't. The print one could be:

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/main.css"
title="{description}">
<link rel="alternate stylesheet" type="text/css" href="css/alt.css"
title="{description}">

css/main.css
@media screen {
....
}
@media print {
....
}

css/alt.css
@media screen {
....
}
@media print {
....
}

Though to avoid duplication, better would be to keep the three files
separate and have:

css/main.css
@import "print.css";
@media screen {
....
}

css/alt.css
@import "print.css";
@media screen {
....
}

css/print.css
@media print {
....
}



--
Chris

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

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 ?

I was using an example I was familiar with - the manuscript format
uses 1500 characters per page. That's neither here nor there, the
process is the same. You set your stylesheet for print by the
traditional required parameters, whatever they may be. Then you print
out a page and count the number of characters in a line.

For the screen stylesheet you work in character widths, which as we
have now established are 3/5em. The result will be the line breaks in
the same place on screen as they are when printed.

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.

Not on screen. Do your margin in inches for print, then count how many
characters across the page that results in. For screen use "padding"
not "margin" or "text-indent", and set in ems. The result will be the
same layout on screen as the printed page.

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;

/* That should have said 36em for my example */

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;
}

No. That's what the projection media type is for. Read my other post,
and quit messing with the subject line will ya?

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

Yes, no, maybe. Forget about numbering. Page break is useful but not
reliable.

thanks Wolfgang,

Hmm.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:59:06 +0100, PeterMcC wrote:

Just tried it - attempting to open an FD-generated html file gives a
"Unexpected file error"

Did you enter any action, sluglines, dialog, characters ? etc ?
could you ? I was hoping to see if there was an html formatting that FD
would eat, and if so, it might be worth conforming to that. If not, ta
hell wit' 'em !.. ;-)
Could you try it again ? thanks
djp

David J Patrick wrote in
<pan.2004.06.22.15.27.08.498847 (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:59:06 +0100, PeterMcC wrote:


Just tried it - attempting to open an FD-generated html file gives a
"Unexpected file error"


Did you enter any action, sluglines, dialog, characters ? etc ?
could you ? I was hoping to see if there was an html formatting that
FD would eat, and if so, it might be worth conforming to that. If
not, ta hell wit' 'em !.. ;-)
Could you try it again ? thanks
djp

It was a full hour TV script complete with all the formatting - and a
brilliant plot and characters - the entire content of the script was within
in the <pre></pre> section. I opened the resulting file in notepad, deleted
the html stuff so that I was left with just the contents of the <pre> and
pasted that back into FD and it was just as the original FD file though FD
wouldn't accept the notepad file as a legitimate file when I changed the
extension to .fdr

BTW - I think I'm just confusing the issue with a red herring here. You
don't have to keep on being polite, a recommendation to stuff Final Draft
and stop making stupid suggestions will suffice

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.