W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2009

[Bug 7645] associate printable pages and less-convenient-to-print pages with link rel value "print"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:57:34 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MzSW6-0006px-0k@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7645


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME




--- Comment #3 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2009-10-18 09:57:33 ---
> Typically, both sets of pages are printable and also fit all other media. A
> difference in convenience (the usual case) is not a difference in basic
> ability. Therefore, media="print" and media="all" would apply to both.

media=print just means that the page is primarily intended for the print media,
it doesn't mean other media can't be used.


> If a page designer assigns a stylesheet only for "print" to the print-preferred
> page and another stylesheet for all other media, itemizing them all except
> print in the stylesheet link/s on the pages that are less convenient to print,
> the risk is whether some UAs that normally support printing would decline to
> send the less-convenient pages to the printer at all, because they're linked to
> a stylesheet for nonprint media only.

This is not a realistic risk. No browser is going to do this.


> Section 6.7.2 says, "User agents should
> also run the printing steps whenever the user asks for the opportunity to
> obtain a physical form (e.g. printed copy) . . . .", and, semantically,
> "should" allows a UA to not print what the link doesn't say is printable.

Sure, the UA could also refuse to show media=screen pages, or in fact any pages
at all. UAs aren't going to, though.


> "Unless otherwise specified, a keyword must not be specified more than once per
> rel attribute." Section 6.12.3, above the table. Section 6.12.3.1 implicitly
> allows multiple link elements (e.g., ". . . if a document links to two other
> documents with the link type "alternate" . . . ."). I read the two provisions
> together as meaning that multiple rel alternate links are allowed on a page but
> only if the links are unique within the page. This bars linking from a single
> hreflang French page to two hreflang German pages of the same type and media.

I don't understand the relevance (and it seems you are misreading the
requirements — they should be read literally, not interpreted as above).


> Forbidding some pages from printing is not a great idea when the difference is
> merely one of convenience or between strong and moderate legibility, when, as
> if often the case, the less-suitable pages would still be functionally
> readable. The difference is most frequently that one consumes more paper and
> takes more steps to execute, e.g., as browsers don't usually accept a range of
> Web pages to print.
> 
> This proposed link is to point to a nonrestrictive preference suggested by the
> page author.

That's what rel=alternate media=print does.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 09:57:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 October 2009 09:57:35 GMT