W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Media Groups as Media Queries

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:55:32 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200708161855.32481.bert@w3.org>

On Tuesday 14 August 2007 02:24, fantasai wrote:
> I came across some comments on a website, discussing media queries (I
> forget where unfortunately) and one person (who I think is on this
> list?) commented that the current system of having a media type per
> category of device wasn't particularly author-friendly. The argument
> was that, for example, if a set of styles applied to paged media at
> the moment the author would have to place them in
>    @media print, projection { ... }
> If a new paged device was added, then the @media rule is no longer
> exhaustive. The poster suggested that it would be more useful to use
> the media *groups* defined in CSS2.1 [1]. E.g.
>    @media paged { ... }
> would take care of both of these and any future devices that use a
> paged display. I thought this was a very good suggestion, so I went
> digging through our archives to see if anyone else had brought it up.
>
> The idea was brought up as a last call comment in 2002:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2002Feb/0151.html
> but I couldn't find a record of any wg discussion about it.
>
> David Baron also mentioned it on the wg list last year:
>   
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2006AprJun/0144.html
>
> I think we should add these as possible media queries:
>    static / interactive
>    continuous / paged
>    visual / tactile / aural(?)

I don't like that at all. Too many keywords with obscure meanings. Too 
abstract.

There are 9 media. Far too few to need to group them into 7 sets.

In my experience, moreover, 'print' and 'screen' have more in common 
than 'print' and 'projection', but none of the above sets corresponds 
to 'print, screen'. The static group has two members, 'embossed' 
and 'print', how often do you write style rules that apply to those two 
and to no others? The interactive group has only one 
member, 'projection', so why not write 'projection'? The continuous 
group has 'braille', 'screen', 'speech' and 'tty', also not a group 
that has much in common.

Maybe you can add device characteristics such as has-mouse or has-sound 
('@media all and (has-mouse)'), but I don't really have a use case for 
that either.



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 16:55:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:52 GMT