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 21:31:06 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1MzdLG-000764-23@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #4 from Nick Levinson <Nick_Levinson@yahoo.com>  2009-10-18 21:31:05 ---
> . . . (and it seems you are misreading the requirements . . . [--]
> they should be read literally, not interpreted as above).
When the provisions apply but literalism doesn't say how, interpretation is
necessary and inevitable. If one of two provisions bars multiple use and the
other permits it, the two must be reconciled.

>> 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 . . . .
The French-to-German example is to two of which one is the print-preferred and
the other is the print-nonpreferred.

>> . . . semantically, "should" allows a UA to not print what the link
>> doesn't say is printable ["because they're linked to a stylesheet
>> for nonprint media only"].
> Sure, the UA could also refuse to show media=screen pages, or
> in fact any pages at all. UAs aren't going to, though.
If UAs were required (not merely expected) to comply, refusing to show any
pages or those CSS-styled for screen would not be allowed.

If the spec works on point as implemented, it'll have to do, but relying on
understandings of intent in bug reports instead of on explicit statements in
the spec leaves too much room for UA design managers, who'll probably never
trace from a spec provision to a bug discussion to find intent before

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 21:31:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:41 UTC