On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
Print preview.
Different media calls for different displaying. While this may seem
like a disadvantage, markup languages such as HTML actually use this
to their great advantage. By seperating content and style, you can
prepare a document for several media types with minimal redundancy.
I was not ignoring print preview, just pointing out the differences between
how a webpage looks when displayed regularly in a browser, and when it is
printed to paper.
I fear we may be discussing slightly different topics. What I am
trying to point out is that these differences are a good thing. We
should actively use this great adaptability of markup to different
media to our advantage.
I've received many complaints in my time about how
great
a page looks in the browser, and how trashy it looks when printed. Even if
the printed copy looks alright, it is frequently "not what I expected"
because the page looks different on different display media.
In that case, rather than waste Wikibookians' valuable time and
efforts creating and maintaining PDF versions, perhaps we could simply
apologise to these users and point out how they can preview what the
printed media will look like.
If they find their printouts trashy, this can be remedied using
currently available markup or by politely encouraging them to try a
CSS capable browser to make use of the Wikibooks print-stylesheet.
(how do you render a page break on the computer
screen?).
The screen is only one page; so you don't. This is why different media
calls for different stylesheets.
It was a rhetorical question.
I know. A rhetorical question generally makes its point by implying
an answer. This is its weakness.
My impression from the context was that the answer you were suggesting
was "you can't", thus implying that this was a problem. I, however,
don't see this as a problem at all, indicated by my alternate answer
"you don't".
I probably should have left it at that, but went on to pad it with an
explanation, fearing that it would be misunderstood. Guess that didn't
work so well.
You cannot sensically render a page break in
the browser, but a printed book will require page breaks. This means that
the formatting and styles for the print version of the book needs to be
different from the in-browser version, even if only though the addition of
page breaks and the like.
I agree with you fully. The solution, I argue, lies with CSS. The
markup can contain elements that are interpreted differently depending
on which stylesheet is used. Elements can trigger page breaks when
rendered with the print stylesheet but do nothing otherwise.
A common example is people who use object widths
incorrectly. [...]
It's not an underlying problem with the
software or the rendering or anything, it's a problem with authors who
don't take printed media into account when they design a page.
Then, the first step might be to create a few typesetting guidelines;
a few points with what to be aware of, what tools are out there, and
how to ensure the document renders properly on different media.
I'd be willing to create that sort of document with the help of
someone who has more knowledge of the issues that have come up in the
past (in the very least to ensure that the document covers the
essentials and doesn't go off on needless rants).
Because it's
author error, it's not a problem with all books, and I would like to think
I've avoided in when I authored the pages in the [[Circuit Theory]] book.
I'd say you have.
Cheers,
Martin Swift
--
\u270C