- From: Rob Brackett via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 19:44:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
ON THE OTHER HAND (watch me talk myself out of this whole thing, ha!)
The more I think about this, the more I realize I may have
subconsciously been looking for this:
```css
/* Simple styles for all my stuff */
@media (prefers-motion) { /* sprinkle in fancy transitions and
animations, etc. */ }
```
instead of:
```css
/* Fancy styles ~and motion~ for all my stuff */
@media (prefers-reduced-motion) { /* negate all the motion stuff I did
above */ }
```
However, that first scenario is actually entirely impractical. Since
any query involving an unknown property results in a non-match, that
means a user-agent that doesn’t support this feature at all (either
because it’s old or hasn’t done any work) would never give you any way
(in plain CSS, at least) to add your motion. `@media not
(prefers-motion)` and `@media (prefers-motion)` would both evaluate to
`false` and there’s no way to check a media feature in an `@supports`
rule (as I understand it, at least), which is a real practical
problem.
So… I think I rescind my whole concern anyway, because the practical
issue here is *much* bigger than my vague double-negative concern.
Sorry for all the wasted breath :\
--
GitHub Notification of comment by Mr0grog
Please view or discuss this issue at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/442#issuecomment-254919712
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 19:44:39 UTC