Re: [css-device-adapt] Apply @viewport to top-level documents only

I think that is an acceptable compromise.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:37 PM, François REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
>> > I don't think this is a good idea. I think one of the main use case of
>> > @viewport is to be embedded into @media to fallback to a known amount of
>> > fixed-size layouts even under any real pixel size as viewport, or for >
>> > slide
>> > decks this is a way to make sure your content is always rendered under a
>> > fixed-size resolution and "scaled-to-fit" into the user browser. >
>> > Documents
>> > inside an iframe totally want this behavior to continue to work.
>>
>> There is no "continue to work" here as this has not been supported by
>> implementations before AFAIK (meta viewport or prefixed @viewport).
>> I'm worried about the progression of the spec and the implementations.
>> So my proposal is to postpone to a level 2.
>
>
> Wouldn't it be better to simply fix the implementations? Just to understand
> the concerns, how hard would that be?
>
> If I have a look at the samples at [1] which is the reference of the
> @viewport at-rule, I'm afraid to say any website relying on any of those
> @viewport examples will break in an iframe. This is a huge fail according to
> me.  If the goal is to provide an alternative to <meta viewport> that is not
> more reliable than <meta viewport> (i.e. that is unsuitable for any RWD
> purpose), as a web author I think this is kinda sad.
>
> If the concern is the impossibility to make the spec progresses further down
> the standardization track because of lack of implementation supporting this
> feature right now, would it be possible to rewrite the statement as a MAY?
>
> -- User agents MAY not apply certain @viewport declarations
> -- on non-top-level documents, at the UA discretion. It is
> -- however recommended to support the "width" and "height"
> -- properties even in those documents.
>
> This makes it possible for browser to support "width" and "height" only
> without being in contradiction with the spec, while still making the feature
> optional which enables to count current implementation in the
> standardization track.
>
> Would that be an acceptable compromise?
> François
>



-- 
Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
Web Platform Architect, Intel Corporation.
Phone  +45 4294 9458 ﹆﹆﹆

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 12:40:36 UTC