- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:33:04 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:14:20 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > We revised the wording for 'height', 'width', 'device-height', and > 'device-width' to make it clearer how they behave in paged media. > For example, the definition of 'height' is: > # The ‘height’ media feature describes the height of the targeted > # display area of the output device. For continuous media, this is > # the height of the viewport. For paged media, this is the height > # of the page box. > > I think we should make similar clarifications to 'aspect-ratio', > 'device-aspect-ratio', and 'orientation'. In particular, I think > 'aspect-ratio' and 'orientation' should be like 'height' and > 'width', while 'device-aspect-ratio' should be like 'device-height' > and 'device-width'. > > It might even be good to define 'aspect-ratio' and 'orientation' in > terms of 'width' and 'height', and define 'device-aspect-ratio' in > terms of 'device-width' and 'device-height'. That seems fine with me, though it seems we should decide on whether or not to keep the aspect-ratio and device-aspect-ratio features and what syntax they should have. (I don't think there was closure on that issue.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 29 December 2008 15:33:52 UTC