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

Re: [css3-mediaqueries] clearer wording for 'orientation' and '*aspect-ratio' for paged media

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:33:04 +0100
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.umxj5eee64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:14:20 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
wrote:
> We revised the wording for 'height', 'width', 'device-height', and
> 'device-width' to make it clearer how they behave in paged media.
> For example, the definition of 'height' is:
>   # The ‘height’ media feature describes the height of the targeted
>   # display area of the output device. For continuous media, this is
>   # the height of the viewport. For paged media, this is the height
>   # of the page box.
>
> I think we should make similar clarifications to 'aspect-ratio',
> 'device-aspect-ratio', and 'orientation'.  In particular, I think
> 'aspect-ratio' and 'orientation' should be like 'height' and
> 'width', while 'device-aspect-ratio' should be like 'device-height'
> and 'device-width'.
>
> It might even be good to define 'aspect-ratio' and 'orientation' in
> terms of 'width' and 'height', and define 'device-aspect-ratio' in
> terms of 'device-width' and 'device-height'.

That seems fine with me, though it seems we should decide on whether or  
not to keep the aspect-ratio and device-aspect-ratio features and what  
syntax they should have. (I don't think there was closure on that issue.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 29 December 2008 15:33:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:18 GMT