- From: Stijn Peeters <stijn.p@hccnet.nl>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:21:00 +0200
Sander schreef: > > Stijn Peeters schreef: >> Sander schreef: >>> K?i?tof ?elechovski schreef: >>>> >>>> The acronym URL expands to "Uniform Resource **Locator**?. The >>>> string ?print:#? does not match this spec: it is not a locator, it >>>> is a processing instruction. BTW, the full form of the local URL >>>> ?#? can be viewed as ?html:#? (whether it is allowed by the URL >>>> standard or not) which means that you need a URL to access the >>>> resource you want to print; prefixing it with ?print:? would result >>>> in a double URL scheme, which is unacceptable. Therefore it is >>>> better to use a special target, if any. >>>> >>> Would href="print://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/" >>> have been better then? >> I think new URI schemes are outside the scope of the WHATWG work. See >> also http://rfc.net/std0066.html#s3.1. and http://rfc.net/rfc2718.html > > My initial request was not about a specific technique, but about a > functionality. If a pseudo-protocol is not an option, maybe there's > another solution. > > cheers, > Sander Certainly, just wanted to point out that in the case you'd consider a URI scheme the best option, this was not the appropriate place to discuss it further. As for the request itself, I think I agree with Lachlan: I do not see a real reason to implement something that is already perfectly covered by javascript:print(). It is indeed basic funtionality of most browsers but I think this is also a reason _not_ to implement a specific attribute or element for this, as it would be redundant. Javascript has traditionally been used as a means of accessing the browser's functionality (back, forward, refresh, input prompts, confirmation dialogs...) and printing fits well in there. Regards, Stijn
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2007 12:21:00 UTC