It would be great if you could run it against the tests at https://www.print-css.rocks/

They would give a much better idea of its complex printing capabilities.

I'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-`.

▲

pac0 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It 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 3 days ago | parent [-]

CSS 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.m...

	▲	phonon 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I'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.