Sander schreef:
Stijn Peeters schreef:
Sander schreef:
Křištof Želechovski 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
