Re: Printing tags

Benjamin Franz (snowhare@netimages.com)
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 06:41:05 -0800 (PST)


Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 06:41:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980228043125.12588A-100000@dipoli.hut.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980228062828.30928A-100000@ns.viet.net>
Subject: Re: Printing tags

On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Jari K Ollikainen wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Harold wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't it be nice to have these tags: <NOPRINT> </NOPRINT>.  With 
> > everything in between filtered out when the page is printed out.  So
> > it could be used to stop navigation bars (usually placed above and
> > below the page content) from being printed.  It would probably save
> > quite a lot of paper. 
>
> I agree, but why just <NOPRINT> why not as well <NOSOURCE>??? 

Because one is a reasonable advisory to web browsers "in a printed format
this wouldn't make sense" while the other suggests a fundamental
mis-understanding of both HTML and HTTP?

I don't even need a _web browser_ to view HTML source code. It would be
doing a dis-service to authors to mislead them into believing they could
'hide' their HTML source code from people. They can't - and *NO* HTML tag
will ever change that. 

Even *compiled* languages like Java can be reverse compiled to source code
with off the shelf tools.

-- 
Benjamin Franz