Re: Bug 23935 - Proposal: New syntax for constraints

On 11/27/13 10:55 AM, Jim Barnett wrote:
>
> I prefer the current syntax.  It is more compact and makes back-off 
> easier.  Furthermore, it makes the semantics of ‘best effort’ values 
> like min/max/mid easy to understand, at least in the case of optional 
> constraints. Suppose we have optional constraints  “prop1 max, prop2 
> max, prop3 max”.  This would  mean:  set prop1 to the largest value 
> you can, the set prop2 to the largest value you can without changing 
> prop1, then set prop3 to the largest value you can get without 
> changing  prop1 or prop2.  The ordering of the constraints specifies 
> the ordering of the optimizations.
>

I don't understand your use of min and max (what is mid?) - Can you 
please use actual syntax?

Are you saying that { width: { max: 2880 } } must return the highest 
value possible, up to and including 2880? If so, that doesn't match my 
understanding. Where in the spec do you read that?

My interpretation is that there is no such guarantee, and that, given no 
lower bound, browsers can return anything from the lowest possible value 
and up to and including 2880.

.: Jan-Ivar :.