- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:34:32 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr.: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Christoph Päper >> Tab Atkins Jr.: > > Patches welcome if you can justify the change to our UI leads. I’m scared of the mess that are the dialogs comprised of document format print features, application print settings, OS printing system and manufacturer’s printer driver – and, judging from the progress of the past 15 or 20 years, so are many other people and many of those that were not should have been. >> if we pretend that browser default stylesheets had something like … > > If we introduce a new property, that's solution 4, not 2. Exactly, just with a (vendor-specific) property that authors don’t need to use, because its (pseudo) presence in UA stylesheets usually is enough. >>> (4c) … specify a rendering intent in terms of color profiles >>> >>> I think color profiles are a more general case that applies to *everything* on the page, including text colors, <img> elements, etc., and so it shouldn't be mixed into the semantic we're trying to express here. >> >> That *are* the semantics “print-friendly” UI options try to express. Hiding the background images and colors only is just the easiest thing to do. That’s the point I wanted to get across. There is no easy solution (4), because almost everything could reasonably be changed by print-optimizing UA functions, even if it is not done yet, commonly. You gave the example of shadows yourself (which I silently unified with borders). >> guise-background: <guise> [<guise>]? >> guise-content: <guise> [<guise>]? >> guise-border: <guise> [<guise>]? > > I don't believe we actually need that much control over this kind of feature. If you do it, you better do it right. The proposals I’ve seen so far roughly equalled my media-dependent “guise: auto;”, which is voodoo.
Received on Tuesday, 16 August 2011 22:35:03 UTC