4 ms·
It would be great if you could run it against the tests at https://www.print-css.rocks/ https://www.print-css.rocks/ They would give a much better idea of its
by phonon 1y ago
It would be great if you could run it against the tests at https://www.print-css.rocks/ https://www.print-css.rocks/
They would give a much better idea of its complex printing capabilities.
- pac0 1y agoIt should be required to run these tests for these libraries. It's really frustrating to have to discover it trying to make it work.
- tannhaeuser 1y agoCSS coverage is stated in [1]. It should be required to do minimal assessment before entitledly posting on HN. [1]: https://github.com/plutoprint/plutobook/blob/main/FEATURES.md https://github.com/plutoprint/plutobook/blob/main/FEATURES.m...
- phonon 1y agoI'm not sure your point. CSS print conformance is extremely complex. There is a fairly well known open source test suite, that's fully dynamic, that can be run with visual outputs, fail/pass metrics etc. That would give an interested new user a much better grounding if the library is worth using, considering there are already several other options.
- decafb 1y agoI'm surprised to see the properties I'm most interested in neither in these tests nor in plutoprints supported css. I'm talking about `text-wrap: pretty` (potentially avoid rivers and orpahns, depending on implementation), `orphans`, `widows` and the various `break-`.