- From: alexelias via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2016 20:59:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The min-width semantics are indeed good, that's why Chrome for Android and iOS Safari already treat `meta width=` quite similarly to `@viewport min-width`. I just tested this again on http://output.jsbin.com/dakihubara -- you can see on phones they zoom out to fit the entire image. (If developers don't want that behavior, they can set `initial-scale=1`, as I mentioned above.) The main difference is that `min-width: 0` is no-op, whereas `meta width=0` would break flexible layouts because mobile browsers also use the `width` value as the initial size in the absence of other constraints (whereas desktop browsers use the window size as initial size). > And this works just as well on desktop to let you deal with small windows. If you're suggesting that when a responsive site is in a floating window that the user resizes below the min-width, the browser should start zooming out to keep a complete fit, I disagree. This would look jarring and silly -- it's too different from how windows normally react to resizing. (If anyone did want this, JS polyfills using CSS transforms to achieve the same behavior should already to be out there somewhere.) If you're suggesting min-width should act as a hard "wall" against resize and prevent the user from shrinking the floating window any further, I think this is infeasible in a tabbed browser (imagine 1 of 20 tabs has this restriction), so that's the kind of powerful capability only suited to "webapp manifest" type things. -- GitHub Notification of comment by alexelias Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/258#issuecomment-231205738 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 20:59:58 UTC