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

Re: [mediaqueries] resolution and device-pixel-ratio

From: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 12:41:52 +0000
Message-ID: <5284C510.1010505@gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 14/11/13 04:22, Dean Jackson wrote:
>
> On 14 Nov 2013, at 12:15 pm, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>> The issue isn't where CSS (or whatever) defined them. It's that Safari doesn't follow that definition, and is unlikely to change. This is the reason for proposing a new name.
>>>
>>> (Yes, it's Apple's fault that we implemented something and didn't bring it to the standards groups with a clear description that the value was supposed to be constant)
>>
>> Blink *has* changed, and would like to keep the new definition.
>
> Ummm... we knew Blink has changed and that you would like to keep your new definition. This is exactly why Apple is suggesting another definition. Am I missing something?
>
> The alternatives here are:
>
> (a) Safari changes and breaks content
> (b) Mozilla and Chrome change and break content
> (c) We compromise on something new
>
> Note that content is already incompatible thanks to (a) and (b). That's why we agreed on (c).

But that doesn't really address the existing incompatibility.

I think we're all well aware that "deprecating" the existing 
device-pixel-ratio isn't going to magically stop people using it, and 
indeed (thanks to persistent outdated advice, cargo-cult authoring, 
etc.) continuing to create content using it that only works as intended 
on a subset of browsers. In this respect, the web would surely remain 
fragmented for a long time.

If it was possible and acceptable for Blink to change in order to 
conform to the agreed standard for device-pixel-ratio (realizing that 
some content could be affected), shouldn't it be possible for Safari to 
do the same?

How much content would "break" as a result, and how bad is said 
"breakage"? If the main result is that some pages may fail to use the 
optimum-resolution bitmap assets in certain cases - e.g. when page-zoom 
is not 100% - but otherwise continue to work, ISTM that may be a 
reasonable price to pay for converging on a single standard instead of 
leaving a non-standard, incompatible implementation to pollute the web 
indefinitely.

JK
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 12:42:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 14 November 2013 12:42:18 UTC