Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-mediaqueries-5] Clarifications on [video-]dynamic-range MQs (#6793)

Having had a little side discussion with the chrome folks, the tentative conclusion is that the way safari implemented this is what we'd like the spec to align to. Specifically:
* standard is a subset of high, in the same vein as the color-gammut media feature values.
* Even though we just have two values, we do want to keep it as "standard" and "high", not turn it into "none" and something else so that it'd work in a boolean context, because in the future we may need to add one or more values to distinguish between high and even higher, depending on what sort of device gets made.
* This is about HDR capability, not about "is HDR active". The later question could possibly be interesting, but it's a more complicated one as that means different things on different types of devices, and the primary use of the MQ is just to gate-keep you entire HDR logic
* there is no author desire for sub-dividing the querry between hdr-for-video, hdr-for-images, hdr-for-css, etc, because while that would be more fine grained, it wouldn't actually be fined grained enough to answer all your hdr questions. You might still need to wonder about image/video formats, contrast ratios, quality of tone-mapping…… So it's not really a good idea to make the MQ more complex if it's not actually going to answer the nuances, and having it as a blunt question to know if you should bother with HDR at all seems to be what authors are actually calling for.
* There's nothing unusual about this querry when it comes to testing the capabilities of the output device vs that of the user agent vs that of the combination, so we should neither put special emphasis on it, nor go out of our way to claim that we're only testing one or the other.

In other words, a hypothetical different design, like
```
hdr:
    none | 
    [ 
        [img | img(<img-format>)] |
        [video | video(<video-format>)] |
        css |
        canvas
    ] &&
    active?
```
is **not** actually appealing to authors, and would add complexity for no practical reason, thus we should spec what Safari is shipping.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6793#issuecomment-973647057 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 19 November 2021 01:34:22 UTC