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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:13:38 +0200
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t88pk0s564w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:18:29 +0200, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
wrote:
> 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.)

I think this was a simple mistake. I have fixed these now.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 12:14:05 GMT

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