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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:31:25 -0700
Message-ID: <47FAA0BD.5030504@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

L. David Baron 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.)

The normative text is wrong in this case and the example is right.
See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Aug/0192.html

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 22:32:13 GMT

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