3 ms·

I would be careful with using this method and check the generated PDF versions with your eyes before writing them off as "all is good, it is archived now". I r

I would be careful with using this method and check the generated PDF versions with your eyes before writing them off as "all is good, it is archived now". I recently got bitten by that, when I was trying to print out some page in Chrome, and it was rendering as a bunch of white space surrounded by some elements from the page, but without any actual content I cared about. Turns out, my situation isn't that uncommon for pages that are heavily JS-dependent Note: I am not saying JS=bad. This has nothing to do with JS itself and everything to do with how JS is used to generate/render the page. A lot of pages just don't bother with doing it the right way that doesn't screw up generated PDFs.

fit2rule 6y ago
I've since learned in this thread that Chrome and Firefox are not as good as Safari for this technique - it hasn't impacted me much since I only use Chrome/Firefox for development, mostly. And although I do occasionally check the produced PDF's, the layout doesn't matter to me at all since I use a cmd-line grep or combination of 'pdftotext' to find the page, open the PDF, and click the link to go to the original web page if I need to .. haven't found a single dud PDF in the collection in a randomised sampling, but then again in 20,000+ files, there's bound to be one that didn't make it through the rendering pipeline, but so far, hasn't been an issue.
- filoleg 6y ago
  That clarifies it a lot, thanks for explaining. I actually remember having to eventually go through Safari to print out that one page I mentioned above that was giving me issues in Chrome, so that makes a lot of sense. Glad to find out it wasn't just me somehow being lucky with Safari, and that it is actually a known thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]