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

Re: Comments on media queries

From: Stewart Brodie <stewart.brodie@antplc.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:54:58 +0000
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <2e975b419fe8d37b655fc4e6d94d4216e7d7d7b4@localhost>

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> 
>   * The device dimensions seem potentially harmful. Most often authors  
> should really be querying the view port. Querying the device  
> dimensions implies that the content is presumed to be important enough  
> to warrant asking the user to resize the view port to expand to fill  
> the available space.

Not every browser runs on a desktop.  Some of our content really does want
to know the dimensions of the device, not the size of the frame/iframe that
the document containing the media query might exist in.  AFAICS, there is no
way for a MQ to depend on anything other than its host document's properties
except to use the device dimensions.


>    - If device dimensions querying is kept (I guess it is too late to  
> take it out considering that Opera has shipped it already), I think  
> the spec should advice authors to query the viewport unless they have  
> a really good reason to query the device.

I believe that we have also shipped with MQ support - including devide-width
and device-height features - however, since we only ship to our licencees
(the paying customers), we don't meet the criteria for being a provable
second interoperable implementation.  Anyway, Opera's support still has bugs
in it, which I expect that they will fix over time, so change is not
impossible.  We would update our support too, although it is extremely
unlikely that we would remove device-width and device-height.


>    - Tutorials that I have seen query the device for no good reason.  
> That's not a good sign.

I agree - it isn't good when tutorials teach people incorrectly.


>   * There's no way to query the aspect ratio of the viewport.

It still feels to me like there should be - as long as it's not at the
expense of device-aspect-ratio.  This has been the topic of long
conversations on this mailing list in the past though.


>   * Is it a good idea to treat the interlaced vs. progressive scan  
> mode issue as something that the author should care about and be able  
> to query? Since interlaced display at low refresh rates in already a  
> legacy mode of operation, shouldn't dealing with legacy TV interlacing  
> problems be something that a UA--not the author--takes care of?

Not everybody is going to have an HDTV or progressive-capable SDTV any time
soon, so absolutely it is a good idea - you could make the same argument for
the monochrome and all the colour-related features too.

This feature test means that our content authors can take steps to ensure
that their content looks OK on interlaced displays by providing alternative
graphics, use thicker lines etc.


-- 
Stewart Brodie
Software Engineer
ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 17:55:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT