- From: Alexis Deveria <adeveria@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:35:54 -0700
- 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. Alexis 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