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