Closed
Bug 521068
Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
FireFox only prints first page of multi-page twiki page
Categories
(Firefox :: General, defect)
Firefox
General
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 255399
People
(Reporter: bkorb, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug)
Details
Attachments
(7 files)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.14) Gecko/2009090900 SUSE/3.0.14-0.1 Firefox/3.0.14
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.14) Gecko/2009090900 SUSE/3.0.14-0.1 Firefox/3.0.14
RE: Bug 154892 symptoms still exist.
CF: Bug 154892 Comment #248 from bruce korb <bkorb@gnu.org>
This bug report may be "resolved fix", but I still see it:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.14) Gecko/2009090900
SUSE/3.0.14-0.1 Firefox/3.0.14
with an admittedly ancient twiki:
r88 - 23 Jul 2005 - 14:25:53 - TWikiContributor
I got referred here from twiki:
http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Support/FirefoxPatternSkinPrinting
Here is an example page that fails, with copied text from
the New York Times. My apologies:
=======================
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en-us" lang="en-us">
<head>
<title>(preview) FireFoxTestPrinting < Sandbox < TWiki</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15" />
<link rel="icon" href="/twiki/pub/Sandbox/WebPreferences/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="/twiki/pub/Sandbox/WebPreferences/favicon.ico" type="image/x-icon" />
<meta name="robots" content="noindex" /><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS Feed" href="/twiki/bin/view/Sandbox/WebRss" />
<base href="http://engweb.3pardata.com/twiki/bin/view/Sandbox/FireFoxTestPrinting"></base><!--/closing tag 'solves' IE selection bug-->
<script type="text/javascript" src="/twiki/pub/TWiki/TWikiJavascripts/twiki.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/pattern.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
function launchWindow(inWeb, inTopic) {
return launchTheWindow("/twiki/bin/view/", inWeb, inTopic, "", "viewplain" );
}
//]]>
</script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='/twiki/pub/TWiki/TwistyContrib/twist.js'></script>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/TwistyContrib/twist.css');
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/layout.css');
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/style.css');
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/colors.css');
</style>
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css">
pre {
overflow-x:auto;
overflow-y:hidden;
padding-bottom:expression(this.scrollWidth > this.offsetWidth ? 16 : 0);
}
#patternLeftBarContents li {
text-overflow:ellipsis;
}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--[if lte IE 6]>
<style type="text/css">
#patternLeftBar {
position:relative; /* IE 5.5 needs this or the contents won't show outside the parent container on print. IE 6.0 needs it only during printable copy! */
}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style type="text/css" media="all">
/* Styles that are set using variables */
.twikiInputField {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/background_input.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
.twikiInputFieldDisabled {
background-image:none;
border:none;
}
.twikiButton {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/background_button.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
.patternToolBarButtons .patternButton a {
/*
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/background_button.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
*/
}
.twikiSubmit {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/background_submit.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
.twikiSubmitDisabled {
background-image:none;
}
.twikiToc li {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/bullet-down.gif");
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
#patternLeftBar .patternWebIndicator,
.patternBookView .twikiTopRow {
background-color:#B9DAFF;
}
#patternTopBar { background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/TWiki_header.gif"); background-repeat:no-repeat;}
#patternTopBar { background-color:#ffffff;}
/*
.twikiHelp,
.patternAccessKeyInfo {
background:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/striped_blue.gif");
}
*/
.patternBookView {
border-color:#B9DAFF;
}
#twikiLogin,
#patternLeftBarContents .tipsOfTheDayContents {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/gradient_blue.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
#patternOuter {
/* gradient yellow of left bar and main */
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/gradient_yellow.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
.patternPrintPage #patternOuter {
background:#fff;
}
.twikiPageForm table {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/form_gradient.gif");
background-repeat:repeat-x;
}
#patternLeftBarContents .patternLeftBarPersonal li {
background-image:url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/bullet-blue.gif");
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position:0 .5em;
}
.patternPreviewPage #patternMain {
background-image:url(/twiki/pub/TWiki/PreviewBackground/preview2bg.gif);
}
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/print.css");
</style>
</head>
<body class="patternNoViewPage patternPreviewPage"><a name="PageTop"></a>
<div id="patternScreen">
<div id="patternPageShadow">
<div id="patternPage">
<div id="patternOuter">
<div id="patternFloatWrap">
<div id="patternMain">
<div id="patternMainContents"><h1 class="patternTemplateTitle">FireFoxTestPrinting (preview)</h1>
<div class="twikiHelp">
<span class='twikiAlert'><b>Do not forget</b></span> to save your changes.
<ul>
<li> To <strong>save</strong> changes: Press the [Save Changes] button.</li>
<li> To make <strong>more changes</strong>: Go back in your browser.</li>
<li> To <strong>cancel</strong> and discard any changes: Press the [Discard] button.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<form name="main" action="/twiki/bin/save/Sandbox/FireFoxTestPrinting" method="post">
<div class="patternPreviewArea">
<div class="patternContent">
<div class="patternTopic">
<p />
Obama Meeting Advisers Amid Debate on Afghan Policy
By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY
<p />
WASHINGTON — Eight years to the day after the start of the war in Afghanistan, the White House and Congress were agonizing on Wednesday about what to do next in that isolated, mountainous country that has been called “the graveyard of empires.”
<p />
A day after telling Congressional leaders that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, President Obama was scheduled to confer with his national security team Wednesday afternoon on Afghanistan and Pakistan.
<p />
The afternoon session at the White House was one of several official gatherings in the capital at which American troop levels in Afghanistan were sure to be discussed. So far, President Obama appears to be undecided about how to respond to the proposal by his commanding general for a major troop buildup.
<p />
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday morning at the vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington. Then Mr. Gates went to the White House, where he conferred with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. James L. Jones, the president’s national security adviser.
<p />
On Capitol Hill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hear from a panel of experts on Wednesday afternoon on the threat from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and beyond.
<p />
There have also been scattered antiwar protests in Washington timed for the anniversary, although none as large or emotional as those of the Vietnam era.
<p />
For the moment, President Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to “dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,” as White House officials described his remarks on Tuesday during a meeting with leaders from both parties.
<p />
The meeting on Tuesday and the series of Afghanistan-related events on Wednesday underscored the perilous crosscurrents awaiting Mr. Obama. While some Democrats said on Tuesday that they would support whatever he decided to do, others challenged him about sending more troops. And Republicans pressed him to order the escalation without delay, leading to a pointed exchange between the president and Senator John <span class="twikiNewLink">McCain<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span> of Arizona, his Republican opponent from last year’s election.
<p />
Mr. <span class="twikiNewLink">McCain<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span> told the president that “time is not on our side.” He added, “This should not be a leisurely process,” according to several people in the room.
<p />
A few minutes later, Mr. Obama replied, “John, I can assure you this won’t be leisurely,” according to several attendees. “No one feels more urgency to get this right than I do.”
<p />
Still, compared with the harsh debate over health care, the tone was civil and restrained during the 75-minute meeting in the State Dining Room as Mr. Obama, Vice President Biden and about 30 members of Congress gathered around a large table with only glasses of water and notebooks in front of them.
<p />
Mr. Obama had summoned the lawmakers to assure them that he would keep their concerns in mind as he considered the request of his commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. <span class="twikiNewLink">McChrystal<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span>, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Several administration officials and lawmakers who attended the session on Tuesday said Mr. Obama was intent on using it to dismiss any impression that he would consider pulling out of Afghanistan. “There is no option that would entail a dramatic reduction in troops,” said one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting.
<p />
Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden made it clear that the option Mr. Biden had proposed was not a pure counterterrorism alternative, relying only on drones and Special Forces to track down leaders of Al Qaeda. Instead, Mr. Biden’s approach would increase the use of such surgical strikes while leaving the overall size of the American force in Afghanistan roughly at the 68,000 troops currently authorized.
<p />
And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General <span class="twikiNewLink">McChrystal<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span>. “I’m the one who hired him,” Mr. Obama said, according to participants. “I put him there to give me a frank assessment.”
<p />
A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama’s political challenge. “The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we’ll support it basically,” said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader.
<p />
But Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, smiled and raised her eyebrows in apparent disagreement. “Whether we agreed with it or voted for it remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth,” she said. “But I think there was a real display of universal respect for the manner in which he was approaching it.”
<p />
At least three Democrats — Ms. Pelosi; Senator Carl Levin, the Armed Services Committee chairman; and Representative David R. Obey, the Appropriations Committee chairman — voiced reservations during the meeting about increasing troops, according to those in attendance.
<p />
“There were a number of people who spoke out with a lot of caution about getting in deeper and what the endpoint is,” Mr. Levin said in an interview. Mr. Levin, who promoted accelerated training of Afghan forces, then met alone with Mr. Obama to expand on his views.
<p />
Others shared their skepticism in interviews. “Clearly, there is hesitancy about the prospect of sending 40,000 more troops,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York.
<p />
Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said after the meeting that “it would be irresponsible” to send more troops until it became clear “what is possible in Afghanistan.”
<p />
Some Democrats were more supportive of General <span class="twikiNewLink">McChrystal<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span>’s request, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the intelligence committee, and Representative Ike Skelton, head of the Armed Services Committee.
<p />
“I said the real war in Afghanistan did not start until March, when the president made the speech on strategy,” Mr. Skelton said in an interview, referring to the strategy Mr. Obama put in place shortly after taking office. “There was no strategy before that,” he said, and so the president ought to give General <span class="twikiNewLink">McChrystal<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span> what he needs to execute it.
<p />
Republicans pressed even harder. After the meeting, Mr. <span class="twikiNewLink">McCain<span class="twikiEmulatedLink"><sup>?</sup></span></span> warned against any middle ground. “Half measures is what I worry about,” he said. Citing the Bush administration’s experience in Iraq, he added that half measures “lead to failure over time and an erosion of American public support.”
<p />
Mr. Obama separately pointed to American successes against Al Qaeda in a series of recent missile strikes and Special Forces raids. During a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center just outside Washington on Tuesday, he said Al Qaeda had “lost operational capacity” but he vowed to continue pressing the battle to cripple the network around the world.
<p />
White House officials said the president’s visit was not related to the Afghanistan review. But the public focus on efforts to eliminate Al Qaeda’s top hierarchy through surgical strikes could provide political cover for Mr. Obama should he reject the most expansive request for 40,000 more troops. (The American campaign in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7, 2001, with raids by United States and British planes against suspected sanctuaries of the Taliban and of Osama bin Laden’s followers.)
<p />
Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told a military conference on Tuesday that the president’s strategy review was progressing toward a decision. “It is moving quite rapidly,” he told the Association of the United States Army. “There is a recognition of the need to move through this.”
<p />
The general said the effort in Afghanistan required “a sustained, substantial commitment,” but he declined to say if that meant more troops.
<p />
-- <span class="twikiEmulatedLink">BruceKorb</span> - 07 Oct 2009
</div>
<p />
</div>
</div>
<div class="patternTopicActions"><div class="patternTopicAction"><div class="patternSaveOptions"><span class="patternSaveOptionsContents"><input type="checkbox" class="twikiCheckbox" title="Creates a new topic revision when saving" id="forcenewrevision" name="forcenewrevision" /><label for="forcenewrevision">Force new revision</label> <a target="ForceNewRevision" onclick="return launchWindow('TWiki','ForceNewRevision')" href="#Opens page in new window" title='Read new revision help text in new window' rel='nofollow'>help</a></span><!--/patternSaveOptionsContents--></div><!--/patternSaveOptions--><div class="patternActionButtons"><input type="submit" id="save" class="twikiSubmit" value='Save' accesskey='s' /><span class="twikiSeparator"> | </span><input type="submit" class="twikiButton" name="action_quietsave" id="quietsave" value='Quiet save' accesskey='q' /><span class="twikiSeparator"> | </span><input type="submit" class="twikiButton" name="action_checkpoint" id="checkpoint" value='Checkpoint' accesskey='k' /> or <input id="discard" type="submit" class="twikiButton" name="action_cancel" value='Discard' accesskey='d' /></div><!--/patternActionButtons--></div><!--/patternTopicAction--></div><!--/patternTopicActions--><div class="patternSaveHelp twikiGrayText"><img width="16" alt="info" align="top" src="/twiki/pub/TWiki/TWikiDocGraphics/info.gif" height="16" border="0" /> <a href="#Opens page in new window" onclick="launchWindow('TWiki', 'AccessKeys'); return false;">Access keys</a>: S = Save, Q = Quiet save, K = Checkpoint, D = Discard</div><!--/patternSaveHelp-->
<input type="hidden" name="originalrev" value="" />
<input type="hidden" name="text" value=" Obama Meeting Advisers Amid Debate on Afghan Policy By PETER BAKER and JEFF ZELENY WASHINGTON &#8212; Eight years to the day after the start of the war in Afghanistan, the White House and Congress were agonizing on Wednesday about what to do next in that isolated, mountainous country that has been called &#8220;the graveyard of empires.&#8221; A day after telling Congressional leaders that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, President Obama was scheduled to confer with his national security team Wednesday afternoon on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The afternoon session at the White House was one of several official gatherings in the capital at which American troop levels in Afghanistan were sure to be discussed. So far, President Obama appears to be undecided about how to respond to the proposal by his commanding general for a major troop buildup. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday morning at the vice president&#8217;s residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington. Then Mr. Gates went to the White House, where he conferred with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gen. James L. Jones, the president&#8217;s national security adviser. On Capitol Hill, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to hear from a panel of experts on Wednesday afternoon on the threat from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and beyond. There have also been scattered antiwar protests in Washington timed for the anniversary, although none as large or emotional as those of the Vietnam era. For the moment, President Obama seemed to be searching for some sort of middle ground, saying he wanted to &#8220;dispense with the straw man argument that this is about either doubling down or leaving Afghanistan,&#8221; as White House officials described his remarks on Tuesday during a meeting with leaders from both parties. The meeting on Tuesday and the series of Afghanistan-related events on Wednesday underscored the perilous crosscurrents awaiting Mr. Obama. While some Democrats said on Tuesday that they would support whatever he decided to do, others challenged him about sending more troops. And Republicans pressed him to order the escalation without delay, leading to a pointed exchange between the president and Senator John McCain of Arizona, his Republican opponent from last year&#8217;s election. Mr. McCain told the president that &#8220;time is not on our side.&#8221; He added, &#8220;This should not be a leisurely process,&#8221; according to several people in the room. A few minutes later, Mr. Obama replied, &#8220;John, I can assure you this won&#8217;t be leisurely,&#8221; according to several attendees. &#8220;No one feels more urgency to get this right than I do.&#8221; Still, compared with the harsh debate over health care, the tone was civil and restrained during the 75-minute meeting in the State Dining Room as Mr. Obama, Vice President Biden and about 30 members of Congress gathered around a large table with only glasses of water and notebooks in front of them. Mr. Obama had summoned the lawmakers to assure them that he would keep their concerns in mind as he considered the request of his commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 more troops. Several administration officials and lawmakers who attended the session on Tuesday said Mr. Obama was intent on using it to dismiss any impression that he would consider pulling out of Afghanistan. &#8220;There is no option that would entail a dramatic reduction in troops,&#8221; said one administration official, who, like others quoted in this article, requested anonymity to discuss the closed-door meeting. Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden made it clear that the option Mr. Biden had proposed was not a pure counterterrorism alternative, relying only on drones and Special Forces to track down leaders of Al Qaeda. Instead, Mr. Biden&#8217;s approach would increase the use of such surgical strikes while leaving the overall size of the American force in Afghanistan roughly at the 68,000 troops currently authorized. And in the final moments of the meeting, Mr. Obama sought to put to rest suspicions of friction with General McChrystal. &#8220;I&#8217;m the one who hired him,&#8221; Mr. Obama said, according to participants. &#8220;I put him there to give me a frank assessment.&#8221; A joint appearance afterward on the White House driveway by the two top Democratic Congressional leaders demonstrated Mr. Obama&#8217;s political challenge. &#8220;The one thing that I thought was interesting was that everyone, Democrats and Republicans, said whatever decision you make, we&#8217;ll support it basically,&#8221; said Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader. But Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, smiled and raised her eyebrows in apparent disagreement. &#8220;Whether we agreed with it or voted for it remains to be seen when we see what the president puts forth,&#8221; she said. &#8220;But I think there was a real display of universal respect for the manner in which he was approaching it.&#8221; At least three Democrats &#8212; Ms. Pelosi; Senator Carl Levin, the Armed Services Committee chairman; and Representative David R. Obey, the Appropriations Committee chairman &#8212; voiced reservations during the meeting about increasing troops, according to those in attendance. &#8220;There were a number of people who spoke out with a lot of caution about getting in deeper and what the endpoint is,&#8221; Mr. Levin said in an interview. Mr. Levin, who promoted accelerated training of Afghan forces, then met alone with Mr. Obama to expand on his views. Others shared their skepticism in interviews. &#8220;Clearly, there is hesitancy about the prospect of sending 40,000 more troops,&#8221; said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said after the meeting that &#8220;it would be irresponsible&#8221; to send more troops until it became clear &#8220;what is possible in Afghanistan.&#8221; Some Democrats were more supportive of General McChrystal&#8217;s request, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, head of the intelligence committee, and Representative Ike Skelton, head of the Armed Services Committee. &#8220;I said the real war in Afghanistan did not start until March, when the president made the speech on strategy,&#8221; Mr. Skelton said in an interview, referring to the strategy Mr. Obama put in place shortly after taking office. &#8220;There was no strategy before that,&#8221; he said, and so the president ought to give General McChrystal what he needs to execute it. Republicans pressed even harder. After the meeting, Mr. McCain warned against any middle ground. &#8220;Half measures is what I worry about,&#8221; he said. Citing the Bush administration&#8217;s experience in Iraq, he added that half measures &#8220;lead to failure over time and an erosion of American public support.&#8221; Mr. Obama separately pointed to American successes against Al Qaeda in a series of recent missile strikes and Special Forces raids. During a visit to the National Counterterrorism Center just outside Washington on Tuesday, he said Al Qaeda had &#8220;lost operational capacity&#8221; but he vowed to continue pressing the battle to cripple the network around the world. White House officials said the president&#8217;s visit was not related to the Afghanistan review. But the public focus on efforts to eliminate Al Qaeda&#8217;s top hierarchy through surgical strikes could provide political cover for Mr. Obama should he reject the most expansive request for 40,000 more troops. (The American campaign in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7, 2001, with raids by United States and British planes against suspected sanctuaries of the Taliban and of Osama bin Laden&#8217;s followers.) Gen. David H. Petraeus, who oversees operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told a military conference on Tuesday that the president&#8217;s strategy review was progressing toward a decision. &#8220;It is moving quite rapidly,&#8221; he told the Association of the United States Army. &#8220;There is a recognition of the need to move through this.&#8221; The general said the effort in Afghanistan required &#8220;a sustained, substantial commitment,&#8221; but he declined to say if that meant more troops. -- Main.BruceKorb - 07 Oct 2009 " />
<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="" />
<input type="hidden" name="formtemplate" value="" />
<input type="hidden" name="topicparent" value="" /></form>
<p />
<p />
</div><!-- /patternMainContents-->
</div><!-- /patternMain-->
</div><!-- /patternFloatWrap-->
<div class="clear"> </div>
</div><!-- /patternOuter--><div id="patternBottomBar"><div id="patternBottomBarContents">3PAR Confidential -- Copyright (c) 3PAR Inc. All rights reserved.
</div><!-- /patternBottomBarContents--></div><!-- /patternBottomBar-->
</div><!-- /patternPage-->
</div><!-- /patternPageShadow-->
</div><!-- /patternScreen-->
</body></html>
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Copy the html into a file
2. bring it up in FireFox
3. print it
Actual Results:
first page printed
Expected Results:
both pages should print
|
||
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
A similar problem occurs with Firefox 3.5.3 on Windows XP Pro SP3 when trying to print this long web page from:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/05/fraudulent_paypay_certificate_published/print.html
only the first page is printed as 1 of 1.
When I go to the "print story" icon on the top of the page it correctly prints
all 3 pages, but with different layout of the ads.
In IE 8.6001.18702 it correctly prints 2 pages with no ads.
|
||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
Just to a quick note to confirm Jim's comment above :
This incorrectly prints only one page: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/05/fraudulent_paypay_certificate_published/
This works fine/correctly: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/05/fraudulent_paypay_certificate_published/print.html
Browser version: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.3) Gecko/20090910 Ubuntu/9.04 (jaunty) Shiretoko/3.5.3
|
||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 2 and comment 1 appear to say the opposite thing, actually. Jim, are
you saying that the /print.html page fails to print properly in Firefox 3.5.3?
I see what Nick describes in comment 2 using Camino 2.1a1pre (2009100200),
which is roughly equivalent to the latest Firefox 3.0.x (Gecko 1.9.0.15pre).
I don't see any absolutely positioned elements in the CSS for the article body,
however. There are a bunch of position:absolute declarations in there, but they
seem to be for elements that aren't used in the article body as far as I can
tell, and the "missing" page occurs near the end of the fifth paragraph with my
font settings.
This needs triage from someone much more familiar with the various single-page
printing bugs and/or a greatly reduced testcase (for both comment 0 and for
comment 1, since they're different examples of HTML/CSS).
OS: Linux → All
Hardware: x86_64 → All
|
|
||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Re: comment 2 - Firefox fails to print correctly the web page if you go to the file tab > select print. Only one truncated page is printed as page 1 of 1 with an ad embedded.
If you go to the print button within the web page layout it prints 3 pages
correctly with ads embedded.
IE prints 2 pages correctly with no ads embedded.
Maybe the solution is to print the pages without the ads like IE does.
|
|
||
Comment 5•15 years ago
|
||
Thanks for clarifying, Jim. The reason for that is the "Print" button on the page actually generates a totally different page than what you see when going to the original URL. See the two URLs in comment 2; the first one is what you get when you go to the page; the second is what the server generates when you click the "Print" button on the original page.
|
|
||
Comment 6•15 years ago
|
||
Note: With IE when you go to tab File > select Print, IE prints 2 pages correctly without any ads
|
|
||
Comment 7•15 years ago
|
||
philippe, would you mind looking into this?
|
||
Comment 8•15 years ago
|
||
testing with Minefield latest nightly.
That Register page specifies this in the stylesheet:
body {
line-height:1.2;
overflow-y:auto;
}
in http://www.theregister.co.uk/style_picker/design
If I remove the overflow-y rule with Firebug, then the page prints correctly.
That is pretty similar to bug 129941 (or bug 165705).
The twiki page in comment 0 I can't say without a direct link to the page and the (print) stylesheet.
|
|
||
Comment 9•15 years ago
|
||
The testcase in bug 129941 comment 49 is exactly the same behaviour I see with the Register URL in this bug, so that's clearly a dupe. Jim, I see you've already found that bug, so you can continue following discussion over there.
Saving the twiki page in comment 0 and attempting to print it actually prints fine. Bruce, can you save the HTML that's a problem for you and upload it here using the "Add an attachment" link, please? (Alternatively, please provide us a link to a problematic twiki page that is publicly accessible.)
Philippe, thanks for your help so far.
|
|
||
Comment 10•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #9)
> Saving the twiki page in comment 0 and attempting to print it actually prints
> fine. Bruce, can you save the HTML that's a problem for you and upload it here
> using the "Add an attachment" link, please? (Alternatively, please provide us a
> link to a problematic twiki page that is publicly accessible.)
A direct link would be better. A 'save as' won't include the stylesheets (and that is the important part) as they are loaded through @import.
|
Reporter | |
Comment 11•15 years ago
|
||
I saved the HTML for you. The twiki is not publicly available.
I'd need to try to find a public twiki with the same version
on the net. Sorry. I don't know how to do such a search in
the limited time I've got for this. Perhaps someone can tell
me how to gather up the "@import" files for you?
|
|
||
Comment 12•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #11)
These are all the stylesheets linked from the page you saved. View source, copy the part between the opening (' and closing '), paste in the location bar just after the main part of the domain (www.example.com). Then save each file, keeping the actual filename (e.g. layout.css), zip it all up and attach the archive to this bug.
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/TwistyContrib/twist.css');
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/layout.css');
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/style.css');
@import url('/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/colors.css');
</style>
<style type="text/css" media="all">
@import url("/twiki/pub/TWiki/PatternSkin/print.css");
</style>
Everything is in the top part of the source for the page, btw.
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 13•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 14•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 15•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 16•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 17•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 18•15 years ago
|
||
There you are -- all five css files. Good luck. Thank you.
|
|
||
Comment 19•15 years ago
|
||
Bruce, thanks for the files.
So, after saving those files locally, copying the source html included in comment 0 then linking the stylesheets, I tried to print that page. I didn't see any problems at all. All versions of Gecko/Firefox (from the 1.9.0pre-FX3.016pre nightly to the latest Minefield build, using both OS X 10.5.8 and Linux Ubuntu 9) print that page as expected.
Reading through the various stylesheets, I didn't se anything that may rise a red flag.
|
|
||
Comment 20•15 years ago
|
||
An archive that contains the page in comment 0 linked to the stylesheets - as used for testing.
For direct testing, it is also available at
http://dev.l-c-n.com/_temp/b521068/a.html
|
|
||
Comment 21•15 years ago
|
||
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 22•15 years ago
|
||
I clicked on the direct link page and clicked print.
I only got the first page.
Just to be clear:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; \
rv:1.9.0.14) Gecko/2009090900 SUSE/3.0.14-0.1 Firefox/3.0.14
|
|
||
Comment 23•15 years ago
|
||
Odd, it works here on Gecko 1.9.0 and newer on OS X and gecko 1.9.1 (Fx 3.5) and newer on Linux. The main content of that page is wrapped in a bunch of divs that are all set to float:left. Perhaps this is a dupe of bug 255399 or bug 45788 ?
|
|
||
Comment 24•15 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #23)
> Odd, it works here on Gecko 1.9.0 and newer on OS X and gecko 1.9.1 (Fx 3.5)
> and newer on Linux. The main content of that page is wrapped in a bunch of divs
> that are all set to float:left. Perhaps this is a dupe of bug 255399 or bug
> 45788 ?
The latter sounds likely. The testcase there actually prints properly for me, so maybe this is a dupe of that and that bug is confined to Linux (or at least isn't a Mac bug any more)?
Bruce, can you try the testcase in bug 45788 and see if you see a similar problem with it? It would be great if you could test a Mozilla browser on a different platform than Linux, too.
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 25•15 years ago
|
||
The bug 45788 example prints fine for me.
However, for this test case:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=283035
I see the blue box truncated to the first page and the
red box extending down through the second page.
|
|
||
Comment 26•15 years ago
|
||
I also see comment 25's results for the testcase on bug 255399, so it sounds like that might be our match in this case.
Bruce, could you comment in bug 45788 with the specific browser and build that you used to get a working result, as I did? I think that bug might be FIXED.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
|
|
Reporter | |
Comment 27•15 years ago
|
||
These may or may not be the same bug, I cannot tell.
Only the author of the code could say for sure.
If a fix for that bug fixes this example, then its the same.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•