- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:00:01 +0000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Boris Zbarsky:] > > I don't think the spec would have to do that. If we wanted the auto- > adjusting behavior (which is not obvious), we could just define vw/vh to > be in terms of the ICB. Except that happens to be what > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-values/#viewport-relative-lengths says > already, except it also talks about "viewport" which is not quite the same > thing, the claims of http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing- > block-details > notwithstanding... > > I do think it's a bit weird that if I have a position:fixed element with > no border/padding/margin, then setting "width: 20vh; right: 0" and > "width: 20vh; left: 80vh" don't have the same behavior when there's a > vertical scrollbar. But this keeps coming back to what the use cases for > vh/vw are. > Also, from css3-mediaqueries [1]: # The 'width' media feature describes the width of the # targeted display area of the output device. For continuous media, # this is the width of the viewport (as described by CSS2, section 9.1.1 [CSS21]) # including the size of a rendered scroll bar (if any). I think it would also be weird for vh/vw units to react to the presence of a scrollbar while MQ still considers the viewport width to be the same. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#width
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 18:00:56 UTC