Fix print links for table section

[antleblanc]

fix #19

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

This pull request doesn't have any tests.

[roblarsen]

I don't think this link covers everything we have here, does it? I wonder if there's something that is closer.

[roblarsen]

Thanks! I think fixing this is a good idea. I don't think the article linked covers everything we do. I wonder if there's anything else we can link to in order to bolster this information.

[antleblanc]

Thanks @roblarsen for your review.

I will search for other articles that's covers table header and let you decide which one sounds more appropriate in this case.

But what I found quite interesting about the Smashing Magazine article is that it covers multiple aspects about the print CSS.

[roblarsen]

That article is interesting and it may be worth looking at the print section with fresh eyes. I just don't think we can swap out that link for the one we're replacing without further context.

@coliff what do you think about looking at the print section to see if there's something interesting we should be doing?

[antleblanc]

Others resources:

• http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2009/10/12/repeating-html-table-headers-on-each-printed-page/
• https://stackoverflow.com/a/52040631

[coliff]

One suggestion for a quick and easy fix for the broken link is to simply link to the same page on the Wayback Machine archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180815150934/http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Printing_Tables

Agree with Rob that it would be worth looking into this again in more depth - that article was last updated in November 2004 (!)

[roblarsen]

@antleblanc Do you want to follow @coliff's suggestion and just use the wayback machine for now? I think we can use this issue as a jumping off point to reevaluate the print section I appreciate the links 👍

[antleblanc]

@roblarsen I've applied the @coliff's suggestion.

[roblarsen]

👍