From 47e142829fd816c89680996c588cc13383719e28 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Morten Stenshorne Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:19:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] safe-printable-inset META value proposal --- rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md diff --git a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0110b1b --- /dev/null +++ b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +# RFC #xyz: Simulate safe printable inset + +## Summary + +We need a way of testing the [safe-printable-inset](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/13190/files) property. + +## Details + +Most printers have a small region along each edge of the paper edges that's not +reliably printable, usually due to the printer's paper handling mechanism. +Authors can steer clear of such unprintable areas using the +`safe-printable-inset` property, which applies in `@page` and `@page` margin +contexts. + +There should be a way for print reftests to test this, by simulating unprintable +areas. + +One rather straight-forward solution would be a META value that sets the width +of the unprintable area on all four sides. For instance: + +` Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:23:05 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] RFC number --- rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md index 0110b1b..f6b4516 100644 --- a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md +++ b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# RFC #xyz: Simulate safe printable inset +# RFC #233: Simulate safe printable inset ## Summary From 333dc3b2bc5de27aeeb9eee6af77953352e9928f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Morten Stenshorne Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:47:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Update safe-printable-inset.md --- rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md index f6b4516..14a9044 100644 --- a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md +++ b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ of the unprintable area on all four sides. For instance: where `inset-specifier` is a numeric value. The unit could be CSS pixels or points. Using centimeters for anything here isn't a great idea, since they don't -convert nicely into CSS pixels (unlike inches). +convert nicely into CSS pixels (unlike inches). I suggest using CSS pixels. Why just one value for all four edges? Although many printers indeed don't necessarily have a uniform unprintable area width along each of the four paper From c7125b7ecc6dc739306d835ea5c217bbceda03e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Morten Stenshorne Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 17:51:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Update safe-printable-inset.md Typos --- rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md index 14a9044..bcba1f3 100644 --- a/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md +++ b/rfcs/safe-printable-inset.md @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ areas. One rather straight-forward solution would be a META value that sets the width of the unprintable area on all four sides. For instance: -`` where `inset-specifier` is a numeric value. The unit could be CSS pixels or points. Using centimeters for anything here isn't a great idea, since they don't @@ -31,4 +31,4 @@ oversimplification of reality, printers may rotate the print output at their own discretion. The user agent may therefore not be able to make assumptions about which edge (long or short?) will be fed first into the printer, or what orientation the sheet of paper has. Therefore using just one value (which should -represent the largest of the four) seems reasonable. +represent the larger of the four) seems reasonable.