- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:42:32 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 08/10/2011 04:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> At the f2f I briefly discussed background printing at the end of >> Tuesday. (minutes: >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0178.html>, >> thread:<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0341.html>). >> >> I had asked people to chime in, but not many people did. Florian >> commented that he was in the camp that thought this should be >> triggered simply by the print stylesheet setting values. (This has >> flaws, both purity-wise and technical*.) Before the f2f, Christoph >> Päper argued similarly. Fantasai said that she thought making the >> property per-element was overkill, but otherwise seemed supportive. > > No, I'm more in Florian's camp, really. (And have a patch to implement > that in Gecko already.) That approach has either technical or purity-based flaws. If you do it properly, and allow any "background" that applies during print-time to apply, you'll massively change behavior, since any stylesheets without an explicit @media attribute are assumed to be "all". If you do it hackily, so that 'background' is only honored if it appears in a stylesheet specifically linked with media="print", you're introducing novel and imo really ugly behavior into the platform. This is akin to Opera's behavior in fullscreen being based off the presence or absence of a stylesheet with media=projection in the page, which is really nasty. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 00:43:19 UTC