W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [css3-values] Typos in 'vw' keyword section

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:00:45 +0200
Message-ID: <19552.9773.947615.464119@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: CRJaquez@Gmail.com
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Christopher Robert Jaquez wrote:

 > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#the-vw-unit)

 > It has two typos and should read:
 > 
 > "...lengths specified in the *‘vw’* unit *are* scaled proportionally."

Thanks, fixed.

 > Also, just out of curiosity, why is there no analog to the 'vm' unit which
 > is the *larger* between 'vw' and 'vh'?  I imagine use cases must have been
 > lacking or something to that effect but it doesn't seem like much of a
 > stretch to have something, much like 'cover' and 'contain' keywords from CSS
 > Backgrounds and Borders.  On the other hand, of course, I suppose you could
 > just use max(1vw,1vh) but, by that logic, why have 'vm' at all when you
 > could also use min(1vw,1vh)?

I don't remember ever discussing this. The best use case for 'vm' is
probably to ensure that your square, or something, is fully visible on
the screen. Now that we can max and min, it can probably be removed
without anyone missing it. I've noted it as an issue.

  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#the-vm-unit

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 9 August 2010 16:01:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT