Last modified: 2014-05-17 08:56:48 UTC
Why does this have to be an explicit user action rather than invoking a print.css file when pages are printed?
Just printing pages already works. (In fact, the "printable version" functions by applying the same stylesheets that are normally used for printable media for screen media as well.) As for the link in sidebar and the &printable=yes functionality, last time I asked the reasoning was: * It will be necessary to actually print pages if we ever explore something like MobileFrontend's dynamic section loading on desktop, or dynamic loading of images * People are used to having a "printable version", even if it doesn't do anything * It provides support for ancient browsers that do not support CSS media queries, including Firefox 5 and lower See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Printable for more information. (Pity we don't have a page like this on mediawiki.org.) Some vaguely related bugs: bug 56786, bug 39117, bug 48234. I'm copying people who particulated in discussions there.
(The link was originally added in 2005 as a result of bug 1577.)
Sounds like it might make sense to do something like gmail's Print email function, which would load the print.css, expand and load images, and then trigger the browser's print dialog. This would be a much smoother flow of the uses and we'd be able to make this more actionable "Print" rather than Printable version. Does that sound reasonable?
> * People are used to having a "printable version", even if it doesn't do > anything > * It provides support for ancient browsers that do not support CSS media > queries, including Firefox 5 and lower I think you can go more ancient than that - netscape 6 supports them, which means any version of firefox ever should support (i think).
Yeh I think this is unnecessary code that we should be moving away from. At the very least if people still want this feature it should be made into an optional extension. Long live the web!!
(In reply to Jon from comment #5) > Yeh I think this is unnecessary code that we should be moving away from. > At the very least if people still want this feature it should be made into > an optional extension. I feel like this came up within the past year. The wikitech-l mailing list or Bugzilla may have additional discussion. I'd also recommend reading bug 22256 if you haven't already. I seem to remember feeling similarly, but then I decided to ultimately not advocate for removal. > Long live the web!! Let's please remember that paper has a much longer and proven shelf life than floppy disks, CDs, DVDs, and the hard drive in your computer. It also doesn't require electricity. No hating on print, please.
(In reply to MZMcBride from comment #6) > I seem to remember feeling similarly, but then I decided to ultimately not > advocate for removal. Bug 56875, of course. This bug seems to be a duplicate.
I'm not hating on print. I hate older browsers and that do not support print media queries and am advocating the use of those instead of an action=print This is what file-> print is for
(long live the web!)
(In reply to MZMcBride from comment #7) > (In reply to MZMcBride from comment #6) > > I seem to remember feeling similarly, but then I decided to ultimately not > > advocate for removal. > > Bug 56875, of course. This bug seems to be a duplicate. Indeed; bug 22256 is clearer and more compelling. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 22256 ***
