- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:37:59 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wednesday 2008-06-18 15:04 -0700, L. David Baron 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"? > > 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? 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. 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. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 22:38:34 UTC