W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries-4][mediaqueries-5] Is the `<mf-range>` "swapping value and name" syntax really useful?

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2018 06:22:14 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-402375676-1530685333-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `<mf-range>`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Close this issue with no change`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;heycam> Topic: &lt;mf-range><br>
&lt;heycam> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2791<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: (width &lt; 100px) is allowed in MQ L4<br>
&lt;heycam> ... it also lets you do (100px > width) which people don't care about strongly<br>
&lt;heycam> ... but they also let you do (50px &lt; width &lt; 100px)<br>
&lt;heycam> ... Firefox has implemented the first one<br>
&lt;heycam> ... and claimed that the second two are more difficult to implement<br>
&lt;heycam> emilio: it's not that I'd like not to, it's that it's somewhat annoying<br>
&lt;heycam> ... the way we parts MQs now, you look at the media feature name, you know what kind of value you parse, so you have the value before it, it is more annoying to figure out which is the media feature name<br>
&lt;heycam> ... and identifiers can also be media feature values<br>
&lt;heycam> ... if you have an ident operator ident, you can't reject it, because you can't know that a range feature with ident values wouldn't make sense, biut...<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: I think the third option is nice<br>
&lt;heycam> ... Tab's suggestion was if dropping the middle one, you can still easily identify the media feature for the third one, just a couple more tokens later<br>
&lt;heycam> emilio: I think if we're going to keep the last one, we may as well keep the previous one<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: doesn't make it much easier<br>
&lt;heycam> astearns: are you the only ones implementing this?<br>
&lt;heycam> emilio: I think so, so far<br>
&lt;heycam> frremy: that was two weeks ago<br>
&lt;heycam> ericwilligers: I think this is clear:<br>
&lt;heycam> width &lt; 100<br>
&lt;heycam> 100 &lt;= width &lt; 200<br>
&lt;heycam> 200 &lt; width<br>
&lt;heycam> ericwilligers: with the last one the width on the RHS<br>
&lt;heycam> florian: if removing the middle one was a signficiant simplification, we can do it, but sounds like not<br>
&lt;heycam> RESOLVED: Close this issue with no change<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2791#issuecomment-402375676 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2018 06:22:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 July 2018 06:22:28 UTC