- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 20:27:16 -0700
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> To start, the issue is that non-white backgrounds are the same cost as >> white backgrounds on a computer screen, but are much more expensive >> when printed. Most webpages aren't designed with printing in mind, >> and thus use far more non-white backgrounds than would be prudent in a >> printed page. To help users, most (all?) browsers automatically >> suppress backgrounds when the user prints a page (and tweaks the text >> colors as well, to maintain adequate contrast). (It's theoretically >> possible for browsers to do more than this, like suppressing >> box-shadow, but no one does so far.) > > Correction: IE9 *does* suppress box-shadows in this situation. The import of this being non-theoretical is that any situation involving the 'background' property specifically is probably not usable, unless you want to extend the same behavior switch to box-shadow and any other properties that may in the future be affected (like border-image, for example). I think that would be a really bad thing to force authors to do. This means that option (3) is probably out of consideration. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 03:28:02 UTC