[Whatwg] Request for HTML-only print link

[Sander]

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 I did not want to say that printing is obsolete; I wanted to say that 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 asking the customer to print is obsolete.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070728/b0ec053c/attachment.htm>