W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Microsoft has now joined the HTML Working Group

From: Dao Gottwald <dao@design-noir.de>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:23:07 +0200
Message-ID: <4619F7EB.805@design-noir.de>
To: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
CC: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>

Matthew Raymond wrote:
>>>   With the potential for abuse (crazy DRM schemes and malicious
>>> alteration of the document to prevent printing of content), bugs (the
>>> page doesn't have the correct print presentation or the changes to the
>>> document aren't undone after printing) and circumvention (turning of
>>> Javascript temporarily or using a script to remove the attributes), why
>>> isn't having a separate printable version of a document not a better
>>> method of addressing this issue? Couldn't you use link to point a <link>
>>> to an alternative print version of the document and have the user agent
>>> prompt to use this version when the user hits the browser print button?
>>>       
>> Maintenance.  No one wants to maintain separate print versions of their
>> pages.
>>     
>
>    This is a poor argument.

It's not. Having to keep two versions of the same page in sync is 
additional complexity that should be avoided where possible.

> The scripting in |onbeforeprint| is
> performing a transform that can be just as easily done on the server. In
> fact, it can be done with a higher reliability because the software and
> hardware are always the same and under the complete control of the
> webmaster, and the result can be cached to improve performance. If done
> intelligently, maintenance isn't even required.
>   

It scales horribly in terms of that you actually want to print the 
current state of a potentially dynamic, ajaxified page. And it decreases 
both client- and server-side performance in all cases that I can think of.

That said, I still agree with Håkon. CSS can handle most real-world 
cases today, and it will get even better with future versions. So the 
beforeprint event sounds like it will become obsolete (if that's not 
already the case), thus it shouldn't be standardized.

--Dao
Received on Monday, 9 April 2007 08:23:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:15:52 GMT