- From: Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:34:49 -0400
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Quoting Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net>: > >>6) An alternative has been proposed that has less potential for abuse, >>is more powerful, and doesn't change basic browser functionality. > > Which alternative was proposed that did not rely on CSS and is acceptable? > (Also, the alternative probably won't work in existing browers...) The one I've been pushing for the last few days: allow scripting to create a copy of the document, manipulate the copy, and print from the copy. That way, the app will just have a button that says "Print High Quality Version" or something, and a script clones the document, makes the appropriate changes, and prints it. When you press the button again (because you forgot you wanted two copies), the script can detect that no changes have been made and simply use the last cloned document object: | if (documentchanged) { | printClone = document.clone(); | prepareForPrinting(printClone); | } | | printClone.print(); Hmm, that prints from the document object instead of the window, though. Is there a better way to implement this? The general idea, though, is that when I print a web page, I want to print a web page, not some altered version of the web page a webmaster sees fit to allow me to print. Specific print version should be handled by UI in the page itself. (Or perhaps with a <link> element.)
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2005 09:34:49 UTC