- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:12:28 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:04:28 +0200, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-mediaqueries/#media1 says: > # For a media feature feature, (feature) will evaluate to true if > # (feature:x) will evaluate to true for a value x other than zero. > > Does this mean: > > (a) (width) is always true, even if the viewport width is zero, > because "0px" is a value other than zero, or: > > (b) (width) is false when the viewport width is zero because "0px" > and "0" are both not "other than zero"? It means (b). Should this be clarified somehow? > I'd also note that because specified widths cannot be negative, > (max-width) currently behaves the same as (width), whereas > (min-width) is always true. Is that really intended? Actually, per that text (min-width) would also evaluate to false if the width of the viewport is zero. In a subsequent e-mail David wrote: > I'd also note that part of this is a change from the CR. In > particular, the requirement that (min-width) and (max-width) are > different from (width) is new. It introduces extra complexity > because it requires propagating the knowledge of which media > features allow zero values (currently all that accept min/max other > than the <ratio> features) and which accept negative values into the > matching code, rather than just enforcing that as a parse-time > requirement. The CR draft is not really clear on what should happen here. That's why it was clarified. We can change it to something else I suppose. Do you have suggestions? > Should valueless media feature expressions with min- and max- even > be allowed? I'm not sure they make sense. If they are allowed, the > CR's wording where they are treated the same as without min-/max- > seems easier to implement for something that I don't see a good use > for. I don't really feel strongly either way. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 10:13:11 UTC