W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2010

[whatwg] window.print() when printing is not supported

From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:42:54 +0000
Message-ID: <1269708174.2261.323.camel@localhost>
On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 13:50 +0000, Aaron Franco wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> My name is Aaron Franco. I'm a web developer and CTO of  
> nothingGrinder: http://blog.nothingGrinder.com
> 
> I'm new to this whole WHATWG process and environment so please be  
> patient with me.
> 
> I'm wondering if the H264 is supported in the HTML5 spec or is  
> included as a part of the spec?
> 
> I hope I've sent this email to the correct address.
> 
> All the best,
> Aaron Franco
> 
> 
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Philipp Serafin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> What could a Web page do that a browser couldn't do better in the  
> >>> same
> >>> situation? (The browser could offer a PDF, so having the site  
> >>> offer a
> >>> PDF when there's no printer doesn't seem like a good solution.)
> >>
> >> One scenario could be mobile devices that really have nothing even
> >> remotely comparable to a printing functionality. For those, it could
> >> make sense to hide "print this page" links to provide more screen  
> >> real
> >> estate.
> >>
> >> I admit though, that's a rather esoteric use case ...
> >
> > It's a valid use case, indeed. Probably not enough to justify adding a
> > way to detect if the UA usefully supports window.print(), though.
> >
> > -- 
> > Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> > \._.,--....,'``.    fL
> > http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> > \  ;`._ ,.
> > Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> > (,_..'`-.;.'
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Aaron Franco
> nothingGrinder CTO
> aaron at nGrinder.com
> http://blog.nothingGrinder.com
> http://www.twitter.com/nGrinderJP
> 
> nothingGrinder Ltd.
> 129 Birkbeck Rd.
> Beckenham, Kent
> BR3 4SR
> London, UK
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: Unless stated to be non confidential, this  
> email and any attachments are private and confidential and are for the  
> addressee only. If you have received this email in error please  
> telephone us on receipt. You are strictly prohibited from using,  
> copying or disseminating it or any information contained in it save to  
> the intended recipient. Internet communications are not secure and  
> nothingGrinder Ltd is not responsible for their abuse by third  
> parties, nor for any alteration or corruption in transmission.
> 


As far as I was aware, there isn't a consensus on the video codecs to be
used with HTML 5. The original idea was to use the OGG formats as they
were open, and should have been therefore more in keeping with the
ideals behind the <video> tag, but various web browsers wanted to do
things more their own way. Again, I'm only going on what I've heard and
read in various places. I think now, the idea is that the site developer
can offer several video in multiple formats and using different codecs,
and the user agent (browser) can either choose the first it supports
from the list or offer the user a choice based on what it supports.

Thanks,
Ash
http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100327/1a9eb854/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 09:42:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:22 UTC