- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:23:14 +1100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-style@w3.org
On 04/12/2008, at 5:11 AM, fantasai wrote: > Dean Jackson wrote: >> This is a good point. I'm not sure what the cost of introducing a new >> type for these queries is compared to defining the precision to be >> used. > > It's not really a new type. The spec defines it that way, and if it's > objectionable I think an argument could be made for an editorial > change > there, but syntactically it's really two integers separated by a > slash. > We do use slash as a separator in some property values in CSS. But this isn't a property value. >> The way I see it is that authors probably will always use the min/max >> style over the aspect-ratio queries anyway. For example, a consumer >> "16:9" device can refer to both 1280x720 and 1366x768, but the second >> does not equal 16:9 (it's very close, but by the spec's definition >> would fail the query). What the author will probably want is a layout >> that works for viewports around that ratio. >> In your example, IMO the author would more likely write something >> like: >> (min-aspect-ratio: [something below 4:3]) and >> (max-aspect-ratio: [something above 4:3 but not above the 16:9 >> switch]) > > See also > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Aug/0101.html I don't like this suggestion very much. There already is a solution (using min and max). Adding a fudge factor for equality seems to indicate a flaw in the original technology. Furthermore, it doesn't really address the use case of multiple devices with a range of aspect ratios (4:3 old skool, 480:320 iphone, 1280x720 tv, 1920:1200 lots of common lcd displays). Basically, you are better off writing a layout for an approximate ratio, not trying to pick an exact one because you never know what devices are coming out. Hence min and max. Dean
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 18:23:57 UTC