W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css3-gcpm] Printing backgrounds (thread reboot)

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:21:33 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU165-ds1186E4B232EE9BDC52FCF6F82A0@phx.gbl>
To: "Brian Manthos" <brianman@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Christoph P├Ąper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: Brian Manthos 
>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:19 PM 
>To: Andrew Fedoniouk ; Tab Atkins Jr. ; Christoph Paper 
>Cc: www-style list 
>Subject: RE: [css3-gcpm] Printing backgrounds (thread reboot) 
>
>Andrew Fedoniouk:
>> +1 and yet ...
>> 
>> Wearing one of my hats: art of management is just a talent
>> of creation systems of motivations for your subordinates.
>> (do not remember where I read this statement)
>> 
>> I mean that if UAs were strict enough in this subject and show
>> "Invalid document" instead of making attempts of rendering it we
>> would live with better content.
>
>The world wasn't ready for that when HTML "woke up".  It's arguably still
>having issues working with it for XML.

XML simply does not work as a web media for simple reason:
any partial XML document is not an XML. By XML definition.
So no progressive rendering for example. But that is too
far from the subject, indeed.

I believe that if it would be requirement to visualize 
HTML5 non-conformant places/errors then it will be better.
Erroneous document will still be readable if needed but we 
would see significantly less number of such documents
at the end.  

>
>> Or at least some sort of "shame on you" watermark, huh?
>
>Sure, that makes the website look "dumb" but how does that help the user
>get a reasonable and useful print result?

When I will see "this document contains errors and/or non-printable 
parts" in print output I simply will not trust that document if it 
is about something serious. But if it will be something like printout of 
Lord of the Rings I'll keep reading it while sitting on the beach. 


I am not asking to stop rendering erroneous documents but
about motivations to make web content better.

>
>> In the same way as browsers visualize broken certificate now.
>> Authors would be motivated to produce something reliable...
>> Too extreme?
>
>Much of the web still flags bad or expired certificates; shame hasn't been
>enough of a motivator.  People often just complain about the 
>messenger/informer ("Why are you asking me questions?  Just render!") 
>because web site authoring perfection isn't the user's priority much
>(most?) of the time. 
>

I personally would like to be even stopped if site of my bank has 
expired certificate. 

What is the point to have certificates at all if you still can 
consume the site that has wrong certificate? 
Irrational.

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 07:22:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT