- From: Christopher Robert Jaquez <crjaquez@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 14:22:01 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <AANLkTinSD0U4VF2ijKYq7VLF6Qg0kPJRWagFKUqEht4U@mail.gmail.com>
In the most recent editors draft of CSS3 Values and Units, the last sentence of the 'vw' keyword section ( http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#the-vw-unit) is as follows: "When the width of the viewport is changed (for example, when the browser window is enlarged), lengths specified in the ‘vh’ unit is scaled proportionally." It has two typos and should read: "...lengths specified in the *‘vw’* unit *are* scaled proportionally." Also, just out of curiosity, why is there no analog to the 'vm' unit which is the *larger* between 'vw' and 'vh'? I imagine use cases must have been lacking or something to that effect but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to have something, much like 'cover' and 'contain' keywords from CSS Backgrounds and Borders. On the other hand, of course, I suppose you could just use max(1vw,1vh) but, by that logic, why have 'vm' at all when you could also use min(1vw,1vh)? Like I said, just curious but the more important point is the typos. Thanks, Jaquez
Received on Monday, 31 May 2010 18:22:48 UTC