- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:20:04 +0200
- To: "Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group" <Daniel.Appelquist@vodafone.com>
- CC: David Storey <dstorey@opera.com>, public-bpwg@w3.org, Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
The reply comes a bit after the battle, but anyway... Appelquist, Daniel, VF-Group wrote: [...] > Francois -- Is there an implementation matrix from the CSS group which gives > us some further data on which MQ features are supported in the browsers that > could give us some further insight on what to recommend developers use / not > use? There is no such matrix for the time being. That's one of the things the CSS group needs to work on to make the spec move to Rec. Francois. > > Dan > > > On 13/07/2009 10:13, "David Storey" <dstorey@opera.com> wrote: > >> >> On 11 Jul 2009, at 00:52, Jo Rabin wrote: >> >>>> Yes, and this is why I argue that a best practice must be >>>> based on techniques that >>>> a) are sufficiently widely available; >>>> b) demonstrably "work", i.e. sufficiently solid experience >>>> about them, and how and when to best apply them is >>>> available; >>>> (b) being more important than (a). >>> They've been around a long time, they are not very widely supported >>> or used. >> Excuse me? Not widely supported is Presto (Opera), WebKit, and Gecko >> (Mozilla)? As mentioned in a previous mail, by some stats, this is >> over 80% of the global mobile market, and that is before Mozilla are >> even out of the starters block. It is even higher with more focused >> regional markets, and when only looking at recent months. >> >> They're certainly supported more widely than the handheld media type, >> which isn't supported by WebKit or Gecko and is only supported by >> Opera in a special mode. >> >> I'd doubt that the WebKit and Gecko devs would have spent the time >> implementing MQs very recently, if they didn't see a use case for them. >> >>> There's no convenient way of assessing whether a user agent supports >>> it or not, so you have to have an alternative strategy that in all >>> likelihood covers all the options anyway. >> I would hazard a guess that this should be pretty trivial to test via >> JavaScript if media queries are supported, or at least if they've been >> applied. Even if MQs are not supported, it doesn't break the page in >> question - you just don't get the mobile optimised stylesheet, and it >> is left to the browser in question to adapt the page (whether it is >> via a zoom interface, single column mode or what have you). >>> The idea of CSS media queries seems to fall into a rather poorly >>> evidenced class "declarative client side adaptation" which needs to >>> be compared with successful techniques like using Javascript to >>> assess the self same things and act accordingly. How many things can >>> you do in a reasonably functional CSS Media Queries enabled browser >>> that you can not do in the same browser, and others besides, using >>> script? >> Depends how well supported scripting is in the browser, if it is at >> all, especially for client-server browsers. MQs also work with JS >> turned off. It is also much easier to override a large screen >> optimised image with a mobile optimised one, before the original image >> is downloaded and applied using MQs. I'm not a good enough scripter >> to know if JavaScript offers all the functionality to detect >> everything that can be detected by media queries. For me MQs are much >> easier to use as I don't have to learn JS to use them. >>> I think CSS Media Queries have been over taken by the tide of >>> history and whether they were at one time a good idea or not, there >>> is no need for them now. >> Don't think I can agree. For example if you think who may be the >> biggest phone operator in the world, one name that might spring to >> mind is maybe Vodafone. They're pretty influential in this whole >> mobile web ball game. If one looks an an abstract from Vodafone from >> an upcoming conference [1] you will find: >> >> "In a typical Vodafone widget, SVG will be used for buttons and all >> sorts of others graphics that make sense to be vector. By the use of >> clever CSS and Media Queries it helps a lot to design for multiple >> platforms, resolutions, screen-sizes and aspect-ratios." >> >> Although Widgets are cross-platform and cross-device (and sometimes it >> is good to look up from the trees and see the forest, not just the >> mobile landscape), widgets to Vodafone are Mobile Widgets, which are >> seemingly only focused at mobiles (Dan will correct me if I'm wrong). >> It is clear that Vodafone have found a real use case for them. >> >> [1] https://www.svgopen.org/2009/registration.php?section=conference_speakers >>> Jo >>> >>> On 10/07/2009 17:40, Eduardo Casais wrote: >>>>>> I think 3 million, but will get the figures next week. >>>> -- >>>>> I'm not sure about the main use, but I was using Media >>>>> Queries long before the iPhone even existed, >>>> That would make about 0.5% rate of utilization -- I gather in the >>>> general Web where MAMA collects its data. This is >>>> not exactly impressive if MQ have been available long >>>> before the emergence of the iPhone, but perhaps this just means >>>> that MQ are not very useful for desktops. >>>>> I don't see how we can tell that a media query is designed to >>>>> offer custom style sheets to iPhones rather >>>>> than any other phone or mobile device. >>>> This is not exactly what I meant, rather I observed that >>>> many examples of CSS media queries seemed primarily intended for >>>> the iPhone _at this point in time_ >>>> (probably because of the popularity of the iPhone). >>>>> it certainly doesn't require the viewport meta tag to be >>>>> useful. >>>> Correct. Remember that the discussion started when someone >>>> suggested mentioning CSS MQ in "3.6.2 Use Client-side Capability >>>> Detection for Dynamic Device State" >>>> What I was hinting at was that for truly dynamic >>>> capability handling, CSS MQ are probably insufficient by themselves >>>> and require other features (such as JavaScript, >>>> Viewport, etc). The only example given that actually deals >>>> with dynamic capability handling (screen orientation) must >>>> also rely upon viewport. Just an observation, not the final word. >>>>> I forgot about the issue of mobile phone makers >>>>> ramping up the pixel density >>>> For quite some time now, far-eastern manufacturers (Korea and >>>> Japan) have been shipping phones with >>>> subsantially higher pixel counts than the iPhone or >>>> anything available in European/USA markets. 480x854 seems to have >>>> become typical for DoCoMo and Softbank. >>>>> Using actual screen width in cm/mm/inches would probably be better >>>> I am not thrilled by this approach... >>>>>> (On a side-note, I disagree that Best Practices must be derived >>>>>> from widely-used techniques. >>>> .... >>>>> Personally, I promote a way of creating mobile apps and services >>>>> based on exploiting what works >>>> Yes, and this is why I argue that a best practice must be >>>> based on techniques that >>>> a) are sufficiently widely available; >>>> b) demonstrably "work", i.e. sufficiently solid experience >>>> about them, and how and when to best apply them is >>>> available; >>>> (b) being more important than (a). >>>> E.Casais >>>> >> David Storey >> >> Chief Web Opener / Product Manager, Opera Dragonfly >> W3C WG: Mobile Web Best Practices / SVG Interest Group >> >> Opera Software ASA, Oslo, Norway >> Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 07:20:45 UTC