By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,985 Members | 2,877 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,985 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

printing - can i suggest a paper size/layout?

P: n/a
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 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
13 Replies


P: n/a
In article
<11*********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups. com>,
ma**@mailinator.com 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
Sep 13 '06 #2

P: n/a
rf
dorayme wrote:
In article
<11*********************@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups. com>,
ma**@mailinator.com 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.
Sep 13 '06 #3

P: n/a
ma**@mailinator.com 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 <rf@invalid.comwrote:
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, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Entering Yosemite National Park: laws of gravity strictly enforced"
Sep 13 '06 #4

P: n/a

ma**@mailinator.com 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.

Sep 13 '06 #5

P: n/a
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.

Sep 13 '06 #6

P: n/a
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 '06 #7

P: n/a

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, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Entering Yosemite National Park: laws of gravity strictly enforced"
Sep 13 '06 #8

P: n/a
ma**@mailinator.com 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.
Sep 13 '06 #9

P: n/a
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 '06 #10

P: n/a
ma**@mailinator.com 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>
Sep 13 '06 #11

P: n/a
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 '06 #12

P: n/a
rf
<ma**@mailinator.comwrote:
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.
Sep 13 '06 #13

P: n/a
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 '06 #14

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.