- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:11:01 -0800
- To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-style@w3.org
Dean Jackson wrote: > > This is a good point. I'm not sure what the cost of introducing a new > type for these queries is compared to defining the precision to be > used. It's not really a new type. The spec defines it that way, and if it's objectionable I think an argument could be made for an editorial change there, but syntactically it's really two integers separated by a slash. We do use slash as a separator in some property values in CSS. > The way I see it is that authors probably will always use the min/max > style over the aspect-ratio queries anyway. For example, a consumer > "16:9" device can refer to both 1280x720 and 1366x768, but the second > does not equal 16:9 (it's very close, but by the spec's definition > would fail the query). What the author will probably want is a layout > that works for viewports around that ratio. > > In your example, IMO the author would more likely write something like: > > (min-aspect-ratio: [something below 4:3]) and > (max-aspect-ratio: [something above 4:3 but not above the 16:9 switch]) See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Aug/0101.html ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 18:11:53 UTC