W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

RE: [css-device-adapt] MSFT feedback on latest editor's draft

From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:12:59 +0000
To: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0b4bcd3f34cf4fc4bea05a1251e74d55@BL2PR03MB260.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Although these are functionally equivalent, I still think there is some value in providing some more explicit named value which indicates the desired behavior.  I don't think percent or vw units seem like a natural go-to for a developer who is looking to disable automatic scaling.

The other side that I am interested in is that the "auto" value seems to be equivalent to "100%" in the latest ED (unless I am misinterpreting steps 6-8 of the constraining procedure).

Thanks,
-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> [mailto:kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 1:03 PM
> To: Matt Rakow
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css-device-adapt] MSFT feedback on latest editor's draft
> 
> These values 100vw and 100% are relative to the initial viewport (which might
> be affected by page zoom as defined in CSSOM Views).
> 
> Kenneth
> 
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > 1. device-width and device-height are being replaced by 100% or 100vw/vh.
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been getting caught up recently on the edits made to the Device
> Adaptation ED and wanted to provide some feedback.
> >>
> >> 1. Explicit values for initial viewport width and height In the
> >> latest ED the named values of "device-width" and "device-height" have
> been removed, and instead declaring a width or height of "auto" is intended
> to provide equivalent behavior.  However, "auto" is already the default
> value, indicating that the UA's default behavior may apply - the behavior just
> changes if you explicitly set the width or height to "auto".
> >>
> >> IE uses "auto" to reflect the default behavior of the browser (i.e. actual
> viewport is minimum 1024px by default), whereas "device-width" and
> "device-height" map to the dimensions of the initial viewport (matching the
> current WD).  I'd like to add the named values back so we can keep these
> concepts distinct, and so that "auto" only has a single meaning.
> >>
> >> I agree that device-width/device-height are probably not the right
> vocabulary to use though.  Perhaps a renaming would be appropriate
> ("initial-viewport-width"?  "window-width"?  "css-pixel-width"?).
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. min- and max- width and height
> >> Currently, there are two ways to provide a viewport "range."  These are
> the min- and max- prefixes for the width and height properties, and the
> interaction of @viewport with width and height media queries.  Having both
> of these mechanisms adds a pretty significant amount of complexity to the
> ways this feature can be applied, especially if both are used simultaneously.
> >>
> >> I'd argue that the min- and max- prefixes for the width and height
> properties are not necessary for the scenarios developers are interested in,
> and that equivalent functionality can be built using only media queries for
> range constraints.  For example, consider the two following rules:
> >>
> >> /* Example A */
> >> @viewport {
> >>     min-width: 640px;
> >>     max-width: 960px;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* Example B */
> >> @media (min-width: 640px) and (max-width: 960px) {
> >>     @viewport { width: device-width; } }
> >>
> >> Both of these rules suggest the author has done the work necessary to
> ensure their site works well for widths between 640 and 960px, and both are
> equivalent for initial viewports within that range.  However, outside of that
> range the behavior differs.  The primary difference is that Example A forces
> scaling for all window sizes outside of the designed-for range, while Example
> B leaves the UA in charge of what happens to those sizes.  I see Example B as
> the better option, as the potentially unbounded scaling of Example A will
> likely end up with an unintended result for extreme viewport sizes.  Consider
> the ~200% scaling that would occur on a 1080p monitor, for example.
> >>
> >> I'd be interested in removing the min/max option from the spec, if there
> is not a particular scenario they are required for.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> > Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
> > Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
> Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 21:13:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC