- From: Jonny Axelsson <jax@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:08:18 +0200
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:43:08 +0100, Malcolm Rowe
<malcolm-what at farside.org.uk> wrote:
> Mark Schenk writes:
>> Therefor I would like to suggest a read-only "window.medium" set to a
>> media type ("screen" | "print" | "projection" | "tv" | "handheld" |
>> "speech" etc).
>
> Not a bad idea, I suppose, but I'd like to understand more about the use
> case for this kind of functionality. What *behaviour* (not presentation,
> since that would be CSS) do you expect you'd change based on the active
> media type?
The most immediate use cases would be to have presentation-type behaviours
for projection, or less behaviours for handheld.
> [Hmm, you could probably emulate this now: by using CSS's @media blocks,
> and then detecting what style rules were active from script.]
Yes you can, but that must be considered a rather ugly hack.
> Secondly, is 'the current media type' only ever a single value, or can
> more than one media type be active at one time (e.g., 'projection'
> + 'screen'?).
No, a given canvas can only have one media type. Projection and screen
(and print and ...) are mutually exclusive. But you can have different
media type for each window.
> Finally, 'window.medium' is a really bad choice for the name. I know
> that 'medium' is the right word (if only one can be active), but
> no-one's going to associate 'medium' with 'active media type'.
> 'mediaType' would be better.
This would be more confusing. Whether or not this is a good habit, many
window and document properties have been aliased, and document.mediaType
would be more likely to be assumed to be the MIME content type (e.g.
text/html).
--
Jonny Axelsson,
Web standards,
Opera Software ASA
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 06:08:18 UTC