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

Re: [css3-mediaqueries] Is (width) ever false?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:31:25 +0200
To: "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ugsyenpg64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 22:09:47 +0200, Sylvain Galineau  
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> Should valueless media feature expressions with min- and max- even
>>> be allowed?  I'm not sure they make sense.  If they are allowed, the
>>> CR's wording where they are treated the same as without min-/max-
>>> seems easier to implement for something that I don't see a good use
>>> for.
>>
>> I don't really feel strongly either way.
>
> I am finding this confusing as well. If min- and max- are intended to  
> express comparisons then a value - an operand, really - should be  
> required. I grok (color) or (width) fine; (min-width) or (max-color) is  
> all around harder to parse. How would they be used ?

Based on this discussion I'm about to commit a change to prohibit usage of  
min/max-prefixed media features. That is, using them will create a  
malformed media query.

Whether this is consistent with the CR draft depends on how you interpret  
that draft. As seen from section 4 (syntax) you could see this as a  
change, but as seen from the normative text elsewhere in the document, eg  
section 5 explaining that media features can take optional min/max  
prefixes, this was already prohibited.

I don't think we have to worry much about compatibility yet but if you  
find that fixing this breaks something please let me know.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 1 September 2008 12:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:12 GMT