Křištof Želechovski schreef:

href="print://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/" is no good; it asks the browser to find the resource using the print protocol. But the print protocol is for printing, not for finding resources; I imagine it could be used for finding out some printer configuration parameters (similar to the way printers with a network interface only can be configured) and to submit documents for printing, nothing more.

How about

<form

action="print://host_name/printer_name/?

href=&quo;http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/&quo;&amp;

palette=mono&amp;

copies=3&amp;

mode=draft,booklet&amp;

stapled=top" method="post" ><input type="submit" value="Print me"></form >? It feels better to me. Of course, the arguments would be interpreted by the browser, not by the printer, contrary to what the syntax suggests, but I think this problem is much smaller and I can swallow it in spite of being a purist.

The idea was not to dictate from HTML how the printer should behave (number of copies, color, etc.). This should be up to the visitor, who can manage that in the print prompt. The request was about an alternative to javascript:print() where there would be no need for client-side scripting. I probably gave this discussion a wrong turn by saying that a print-pseudo-protocol would perhaps be a good solution. I guess i should not have done so as my knowledge about such things is minimal.

The idea that a fragment can address a block element is quite interesting; in the old days a reference to #name would usually correspond to an anchor with the same name---and you cannot embrace a block-level element with an anchor. I think it is still common practice to put the named anchor around the section header and not around the whole section, which would require a division, not an anchor.

I wasn't talking about an anchor, but about an id, which can be any kind of element, with any kind of content. This is how bookmarks work nowadays and it is quite similar to CSS id-selectors. As this "fragment printing" would be new I don't see any backwards compatibility issues.

I did not want to say that printing is obsolete; I wanted to say that asking the customer to print is obsolete. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Your site should not lose functionality because your customer does not have a printer.

It would be the same as it is now. Even with unobtrusive JavaScript I can not check whether a printer is installed and connected.

cheers,
Sander

Reply via email to