W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Home for viewport-related issues

From: Simon Pieters <simon@bocoup.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:40:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOAHyQxq=d2UyUOvH1SvO2rrFaSfUW1hUWeL1bjEsuAuGzX6rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Botond Ballo <bballo@mozilla.com>
Thanks, Yoav.

I'm not editing this spec anymore.

Nevertheless, I agree that it needs to define what uses which viewport.

The cssom-view spec, last I checked, needs work to better reflect
implemented reality. I would suggest iterating in the spec itself until it
closely resembles implementations in browsers as proven by a comprehensive
test suite. Then you can start to talk about levels of the spec, imo.

-- 
Simon Pieters
https://bocoup.com/

Den ons 20 mars 2019 20:44Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> skrev:

> Adding Simon Pieters more up-to-date email address.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 7:53 PM David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the delayed response - this somehow missed my inbox.
>>
>> Agree that we should specify explicitly what coordinate space each
>> relevant API is in. And great to hear VisualViewport is coming to Safari
>> :). I don't think anyone is actively working on @viewport any more and the
>> prevailing opinion in Chromium is it would hurt loading performance so it
>> would be out of scope. There's some useful spec text in device-adaptation
>> related to viewport meta though which might be useful to formalize.
>>
>> +simonp@opera.com, who is the CSSOM View editor, for thoughts. Do you
>> agree this makes sense to go into CSSOM View? If so, should we just patch
>> it into the latest draft or a level 2? Or do you think it'd make sense to
>> iterate on it in a separate repo and merge it in when it's closer to a
>> complete spec?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 7:54 PM Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 22, 2019, at 7:44 AM, David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi www-style,
>>>
>>> I've collected some viewport-related interop research in an explainer I
>>> wrote a while back[1]. This doc tracked issues like how we decide what page
>>> scale to load a page at, how position: fixed elements and overflow: hidden
>>> work in the presence of pinch-zoom, etc.
>>>
>>> bballo@mozilla.com has been working on squashing some of these interop
>>> issues and so far we've been using my GitHub as a place to collect issues
>>> and discussion. I think it'd be beneficial to move the discussion into a
>>> more official+public place, perhaps a WICG GitHub repo. I was wondering if
>>> anyone had thoughts on where this might belong or if there's an existing
>>> spec/repo viewport work might fit well into.
>>>
>>> I think these kind of issues are closely aligned with the
>>> device-adaptation spec [2]. There's also the question of the visualViewport
>>> API spec [3]. This is currently a WICG draft but I believe others are now
>>> implementing it so we could probably start moving it out of "incubation".
>>> That's also closely related to these discussions.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/bokand/bokand.github.io/blob/master/web_viewports_explainer.md
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-device-adapt-1/
>>> [3] https://wicg.github.io/visual-viewport/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be great to have a spec for viewports (basically covering the
>>> stuff the explainer[1] talks about). That spec also needs to define what
>>> coordinate systems are used for ALL THE THINGS (events,
>>> getBoundingClientRect etc etc), as well as talking about what triggers the
>>> firing of scroll events. This spec feels related to CSS OM View, so I'm not
>>> sure if it would go into a level 2 of that spec, be its own spec.
>>>
>>> WebKIt has recently enabled the Visual Viewport API by default, so we
>>> support that proposal.
>>>
>>> I don't think we're as keen on the CSS @viewport rule.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 23:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 20 March 2019 23:41:05 UTC