printing - can i suggest a paper size/layout?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by matt@mailinator.com, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. Guest

    hello,

    im guessing the answer is "no", but can a webpage set the printer's
    paper size & layout? trying to spare my intranet users some extra
    steps.


    thanks,
    matt
    , Sep 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    wrote:

    > hello,
    >
    > im guessing the answer is "no", but can a webpage set the printer's
    > paper size & layout? trying to spare my intranet users some extra
    > steps.


    It can hardly set the paper size. That would be too creepy even
    if it could be made to work. Imagine the printer opening, the
    tray coming out, the A4 in it thrown on the floor, the US Letter
    pack being ripped open and 100 sheets drifting through the air
    into the tray....

    But css can certainly set the layout.... that is what css is
    for...

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Sep 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rf Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > wrote:


    >> im guessing the answer is "no", but can a webpage set the printer's
    >> paper size & layout? trying to spare my intranet users some extra
    >> steps.

    >
    > But css can certainly set the layout.... that is what css is
    > for...


    Methinks matt is talking about landscape/portrait in which case the answer
    is no, this is a user setting.

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Darin McGrew Guest

    wrote:
    >>> im guessing the answer is "no", but can a webpage set the printer's
    >>> paper size & layout? trying to spare my intranet users some extra
    >>> steps.


    dorayme wrote:
    >> But css can certainly set the layout.... that is what css is
    >> for...


    rf <> wrote:
    > Methinks matt is talking about landscape/portrait in which case the answer
    > is no, this is a user setting.


    Well, CSS 2.0 did allow "size: landscape", "size: portrait", and even
    "size: 8.5in 11in", although CSS 2.1 dropped it. See:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html#page-size-prop

    CSS 3 may reintroduce and extend the size property:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#page-size

    Browser support? Well, that's another issue...
    --
    Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
    Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

    "Entering Yosemite National Park: laws of gravity strictly enforced"
    Darin McGrew, Sep 13, 2006
    #4
  5. Andy Dingley Guest

    wrote:

    > im guessing the answer is "no",


    Actually it's yes, but for small values of yes.

    CSS 3 does this, but no-one supports it yet. There's also at least one
    useful ActiveX (MeadCo's ScriptX) that does it, for the ( Windows / IE
    / ActiveX permitted ) context.
    Andy Dingley, Sep 13, 2006
    #5
  6. rf wrote:
    > Methinks matt is talking about landscape/portrait in which case the answer
    > is no, this is a user setting.


    Unless you are printing from flash, then you can set the printer
    orentation. The user has the ability to change it, but you can set it
    as the default for that print job.
    Travis Newbury, Sep 13, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    not following the dramatization -- our printers have multiple paper
    trays of various sizes. it would be nice if i could prep the print
    dialog w/ the desired size & direction (my use of the work "layout" was
    perhaps not the most astute) of the paper.

    matt

    dorayme wrote:
    > It can hardly set the paper size. That would be too creepy even
    > if it could be made to work. Imagine the printer opening, the
    > tray coming out, the A4 in it thrown on the floor, the US Letter
    > pack being ripped open and 100 sheets drifting through the air
    > into the tray....
    >
    > But css can certainly set the layout.... that is what css is
    > for...
    , Sep 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Darin McGrew wrote:
    > Well, CSS 2.0 did allow "size: landscape", "size: portrait", and even
    > "size: 8.5in 11in", although CSS 2.1 dropped it. See:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html#page-size-prop


    ah ha. interesting. that link shows this syntax:

    @page {
    size: landscape;
    }

    ....however im not used to using "@" class definitions. is that valid
    syntax in a .css, just like that?

    perhaps i have CSS 2.1 -- in IE 6, even w/ the above page class
    definition in my print media's .css, when i get to the OS' print dialog
    its still uses my printer's default of portrait. im running on windows
    2k pro.


    thanks,
    matt










    >
    > CSS 3 may reintroduce and extend the size property:
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#page-size
    >
    > Browser support? Well, that's another issue...
    > --
    > Darin McGrew, , http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
    > Web Design Group, , http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
    >
    > "Entering Yosemite National Park: laws of gravity strictly enforced"
    , Sep 13, 2006
    #8
  9. wrote:
    > Darin McGrew wrote:
    >> Well, CSS 2.0 did allow "size: landscape", "size: portrait", and even
    >> "size: 8.5in 11in", although CSS 2.1 dropped it. See:
    >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html#page-size-prop

    >
    > ah ha. interesting. that link shows this syntax:
    >
    > @page {
    > size: landscape;
    > }
    >
    > ...however im not used to using "@" class definitions.


    It's a CSS keyword, not a class.

    > is that valid
    > syntax in a .css, just like that?


    It must be, since the place where you just read about it is the official
    definition of valid CSS syntax.

    >
    > perhaps i have CSS 2.1 -- in IE 6, even w/ the above page class
    > definition in my print media's .css, when i get to the OS' print dialog
    > its still uses my printer's default of portrait. im running on windows
    > 2k pro.


    Even if it was in 2.1, it's unlikely that IE would have implemented it.
    Harlan Messinger, Sep 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    Harlan Messinger wrote:
    > It's a CSS keyword, not a class.


    my terminology may not be exactly correct, but my point gets across. i
    have far too many technologies & languages under my belt to worry about
    appeasing random HTML slingers on usenet.

    > It must be, since the place where you just read about it is the official
    > definition of valid CSS syntax.


    not necessarily, which is why i asked. ive read far too much
    documentation and not known the assumed particulars in order to get
    some things work. not talking css here, but programming syntax in
    general.

    but, let me ask -- whats the point of being a dick? if you dont want to
    help me, then dont. let someone else...


    matt
    , Sep 13, 2006
    #10
  11. wrote:
    > Harlan Messinger wrote:
    >> It's a CSS keyword, not a class.

    >
    > my terminology may not be exactly correct, but my point gets across. i
    > have far too many technologies & languages under my belt to worry about
    > appeasing random HTML slingers on usenet.


    I thought it might be helpful to clarify something that maybe you
    weren't aware of. I usually assume people want to understand, and want
    others to understand, what they are talking about instead of using words
    randomly and hoping the meaning gets sorted out on the other end. You
    might think you're getting your point across, but I've had far too many
    crossed wires occur because people meant one thing and said another. I'm
    perplexed that some people think using the wrong term for something is a
    badge of honor.

    >> It must be, since the place where you just read about it is the official
    >> definition of valid CSS syntax.

    >
    > not necessarily, which is why i asked. ive read far too much
    > documentation and not known the assumed particulars in order to get
    > some things work. not talking css here, but programming syntax in
    > general.


    Not necessarily what? The page in question is from the official CSS
    specification. Whatever is there, is what the syntax is. If it isn't,
    where do you think the correct syntax comes from?

    > but, let me ask -- whats the point of being a dick? if you dont want to
    > help me, then dont. let someone else...


    You asked a question. I gave you the answer. In addition, I pointed out
    that it's the answer *by definition*, which doesn't seem so terrible to
    me, but in response you call me a dick and then pretend that I didn't
    answer your question. Great. Have fun. <plonk>
    Harlan Messinger, Sep 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    Harlan Messinger wrote:
    > > not necessarily, which is why i asked. ive read far too much
    > > documentation and not known the assumed particulars in order to get
    > > some things work. not talking css here, but programming syntax in
    > > general.

    >
    > Not necessarily what? The page in question is from the official CSS


    ....as i said, i have read *far* too much documentation, from official
    sources (MSDN, vendor SDKs, etc..) where that level of certainty is not
    warranted. sometimes there is a *context* that one must be aware of,
    which is not obvious from inline syntax samples alone.

    thus my asking for clarification was reasonable, neutral, and a safe
    bet. i think your reply was none of those things.


    > You asked a question. I gave you the answer. In addition, I pointed out
    > that it's the answer *by definition*


    whatevah. plonk away, i could care less -- i got my answer from others
    who didnt feel the need to lord their mighty CSS sceptors.


    matt
    , Sep 13, 2006
    #12
  13. rf Guest

    <> wrote:

    > whatevah. plonk away, i could care less --


    You probably should care. Plonk is the sound you make when somebody drops
    you into their killfile. That is, they are from now on not receiving your
    posts.

    Others will have noticed your exchange with Harlan (myself included) and
    will think very seriously about responding to any future questions you may
    have.

    IMHO Harlan was quite correct in pointing your your incorrect use of the
    terminology.

    Oh, and BTW, plonk.

    --
    Richard.
    rf, Sep 14, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    rf wrote:
    > You probably should care. Plonk is the sound you make when somebody drops
    > you into their killfile.


    ....i know what plonk means, dork. i just dont care.


    > IMHO Harlan was quite correct in pointing your your incorrect use of the
    > terminology.


    congrats, you too are a Lord of CSS terminology. i grovel like a worm
    at your feet.


    > Oh, and BTW, plonk.


    you really need to dedicate more time to downloading pr0n.


    matt
    , Sep 14, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Sukh
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    400
    =?Utf-8?B?RFdT?=
    Mar 3, 2006
  2. FC
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    732
    Andy Dingley
    Mar 29, 2006
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    572
    John Timney \(MVP\)
    Jun 19, 2006
  4. On Ali
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    417
    On Ali
    Feb 19, 2007
  5. rickman
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    878
    Colin Paul Gloster
    Jul 21, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page