- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:18:16 +0900
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
- Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:33:51 +0900, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:31:32 +0100, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: >> We are interested in these features, but request changes. >> >> aspect-ratio and device-aspect-ratio >> ------------ >> >> We think these should take a number (float) rather than a ratio >> (defined as a string). While ratio gives the same result it doesn't >> seem worth introducing a new type just for these queries. >> >> Also, the spec should be clear wether or not it is talking about the >> physical dimensions (and, as such, give an example without square >> pixels). > > This syntax has been stable for over six and half year (for > device-aspect-ratio). Do we really want to fiddle with that? (There are > two implementations too.) We don't. The WG decided to not change the syntax. > If we do anything with these features I'd rather drop them completely at > this point as I still haven't heard a convincing use case for them > (other than the one orientation addresses). The WG decided to keep the features. >> orientation >> ----------- >> >> We think this should be defined using an angle and allow min/max >> prefixes. The spec can say that an implementation should report the >> angle to the best of its ability. > > What's the use case for that? If the use case here is for things like games etc. the WG thinks this would be better addressed with a dedicated API. orientation is specifically meant for portrait versus landscape. > (My apologies for the belated reply, I've been climbing mountains and > did some travelling for Opera not related to my main job.) -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 04:19:07 UTC