Gregg wrote: > sounds very HTML Specific…… It does sound that way, but I’d say it is browser-specific. Just to follow the logic: · Any content shown in a “web page” (our unit of testing) must be shown in a browser, or be capable of being shown in a browser, therefore you can test it in a browser. · Anything shown in a browser has to be rendered by a browser. · Anything rendered in a browser is translated into CSS pixels, or can be compared to CSS pixels. So given the variety of hardware pixel densities, using CSS pixels as a unit of size measurement is the most robust way across devices, even for plugins like Flash/Silverlight. The worst-case scenario is that you compare the size of something in a plugin black-box to HTML content next to it, or in another browser window. On a related note, are we worried about plugins for 2.1? Given that browsers are deprecating them [1], by mid-2018 they might be a non-issue. It is getting to the point where companies are having to pay people to enable plugins [2]. Cheers, -Alastair 1] https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2016/08/chrome-starts-retiring-flash-in-favour-of-html5/ “with Chrome 55 in December [2016], Flash will be deprecated entirely, with exceptions for "sites which only support Flash." In both cases HTML5 is expected to take up the reins” 2] http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15052286/fedex-adobe-flash-five-dollar-discount-print-orders “The world’s most hated plugin is clinging on thanks to a generous $5 discount offer from FedEx, which apparently desperately needs customers to reenable Adobe Flash to be able to print things from its website”Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 08:31:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:12 UTC