Re: [csswg-drafts] [mediaqueries] Account for minimum font size in relative length media queries (#5858)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[mediaqueries] Account for minimum font size in relative length media queries`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Have the MQ resolve their em against the actual default size which includes minimum.`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: [mediaqueries] Account for minimum font size in relative length media queries<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5858<br>
&lt;dael> florian: You can use font based units in MQ. Is viewport at least 12em. If you changed default font size in browser this is the size that will be taken into account. If you do it using your own CSS it's ignored.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: However, undefined if it takes min font size. If you make min > default should MQ calc on default or min? Having MQ being inconsistent with layout makes them unreliable. But it's tricky<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> q+<br>
&lt;dael> florian: As rune pointed out in issue we're kind of doing weird things with them. The em and rem length units are not effected by min font size. If you increase font is bigger but things measured is not.<br>
&lt;smfr> q-<br>
&lt;astearns> ack smfr<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Appears we have to lie in one way or another. If people do MQ in font units to measure text taking min size seems good. But if trying to check against something measured in font units it wouldn't be.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I don't know what would be better, but good to define.<br>
&lt;dael> florian: I think all browsers do not take min into account. We had somebody complaining b/c that wasn't convenient<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: The use cases rune talked about are things like people setting root font size to 10px so they can use em as a big pixel unit. That is a little different then doing this with root font size<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I don't think the reasoning for lying in normal ems applies here. Might be good to do for consistency, but use case if different enough that telling truth about text size can be worthwhile here<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I agree with TabAtkins. Use cases for font relative units is about how much text can I fit, can I do 2 col of content. That's largely based on size of text. em here should reflect font size<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Happy with that. Is anyone not or is rune on?<br>
&lt;dael> rune: I'm fine with that. Reason why I pointed out is the original reporter said something about consistency and this wouldn't be. There is no consistency argument. I don't have objections against resolving to take min font size into account<br>
&lt;dael> florian: Sounds like consensus<br>
&lt;tantek> regrets+<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop: MQ will take the larger of font size or min font size<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Have the MQ resolve their em against the actual default size which includes minimum.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections to TabAtkins wording?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Have the MQ resolve their em against the actual default size which includes minimum.<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5858#issuecomment-768445295 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 27 January 2021 17:25:44 UTC