W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2011

Re: [css3-values] 1/100 factor on vh/vw/vm units

From: Alexis Deveria <adeveria@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:35:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CANoiYt_ge1VZf=cf7GOeEDuAaZ7ZDnEXw-XgcQ-o87Ko__98Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
It's supported unprefixed in IE9. I'm in agreement though, when
testing these units my initial assumption was that 1vw = 100% width.


On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:00 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> 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').
>> -David
> That's a great idea, but didn't someone say that these are already implemented somewhere, unprefixed? If it wasn't unprefixed, then +1 from me too.
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 20:36:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:05 UTC