- From: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:42:30 +1100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Hi David, --Original Message--: >A recent discussion that probably should have been on the public >list: >https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2011OctDec/0041.html >included discussion of the 'vh', 'vw', and 'vm' (perhaps soon to be >rename to 'vmin' or removed) units. It included examples in which >working group members did not notice that their examples were off by >a factor of 100 (using 0.5vh when 50vh was intended). > >So I'd like to raise the general point: css3-values defines a 'vh' >as 1/100 of the viewport height, and a 'vw' as 1/100 of the viewport >width, and 'vm' as the smaller of 'vh' or 'vw'. I think this factor >of 1/100 is confusing given the names of the units, and the fact >that a bunch of WG members failed to notice this error might be a >sign that the spec is taking the wrong approach, and we should >eliminate the 1/100 bit and make a 'vh' be the height of the >viewport (and likewise for 'vw' and 'vm'/'vmin'). +1 Very sensible indeed. Alex >-David > >-- >𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 >𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ >
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 22:43:03 UTC