W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

[css3-mediaqueries] bad examples for 'orientation'?

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 21:18:29 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080407041829.GA18449@ridley.dbaron.org>

The editor's draft at
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-mediaqueries/#orientation gives the
examples:

# @media all and (portrait) { ... }
# @media all and (landscape) { ... }

However, I couldn't find any normative text allowing the value to be
used without the feature.  I would think that '(orientation)' is a
valid expression (always true), and '(orientation: portrait)' is
also valid, but I don't see anything allowing '(portrait)'.  Should
these examples include the "orientation: "?  Or was this additional
shorthand form intended to be allowed?

(Allowing it seems like it would reduce future extensibility.
However, since this is just syntactic sugar for aspect-ratio, I'm
not sure that's a real concern.  However, it is extra work for
implementations.)

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 04:19:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:04 GMT