- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:20:06 -0700
- To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- CC: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Grant, Melinda wrote: > > I agree with fantasai: The width/height should be defined to map to the > window size and device-width/device-height should be mapped to the screen > size. Both in my opinion should map to the page box for paged media. > (We really don't care if my monitor has speakers on the sides that make > it twice as wide as the display surface or if I'm using a laser printer > that's twice as tall as your inkjet printer -- the overall device > height/width is irrelevant.) > > Maybe: > + 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. > + The 'device-height' media feature describes the height of the > rendering surface of the output device. For continuous media, > this is typically the screen size. For paged media, this is the > height of the page box. > (and analogous for 'width'/'device-width.) Actually, I think the device-width/height should refer to the page sheet size, not the page box. That's more analogous to the screen size, since it's the physical medium size. (The page box could be smaller than the page sheet, just like the viewport is smaller than the screen size.) That's the conclusion we reached in Medford, anyway. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2008 19:20:52 UTC