W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [css3-mediaqueries] not (media-feature)

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:24:30 +0200
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "Kenneth Rohde Christiansen" <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wmp9q4yjf5de51@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:24:39 +0200, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen  
<kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is "not (media-feature)" forbidden per syntax?
> >  Yes.
>
> It seems a bit counter intuitive and conflicting with:
>
> "The logical NOT can be expressed through the ‘not’ keyword. The
> presence of the keyword ‘not’ at the beginning of the media query
> negates the result. I.e., if the media query had been true without the
> ‘not’ keyword it will become false, and vice versa."
>
> I stumpled upon this while debugging a website stating that we (tested
> with Chrome) didn't support the monochrome media query.
>
> Maybe we should just fix the grammar?

I agree it is not very intuitive the way it is, especially since media
types are less useful than initially intended. I would be happy to make
this change, but given how long media queries have been out there,
supported by everybody, I am not sure we can safely do it.

As the syntax you want looks like it should work already, I am sure
people have used it, and they may have gotten their page to look the
way they want without noticing that the media query didn't work. If
we make it work, these rules will start having an effect, which
might no longer be the one originally desired.

What does the rest of the WG think? Is this desirable (I think so)?
Is this safe enough (I don't know)?

  - Florian
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 09:22:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT