- From: Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.r.christiansen@intel.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:01:47 +0200
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Sorry I missed the min- prefix. I would agree that (min-resolution: 0dpi) should evaluate to true. Kenneth On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote: > Le 21/10/2012 13:37, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen a écrit : > >> According to my interpretation of the spec, (resolution) will evaluate >> to true if (resolution:x) will evaluate to true for a value x other >> than zero or zero followed by a valid unit identifier (i.e., other >> than 0, 0dpi, 0dpcm, or 0dppx.). > > > This is not relevant to the issue in my original message. You’re quoting the > third item of the list at the beginning of section 4: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-mediaqueries/#media1 > > This item defines how to evaluate a query with just a feature name, without > a value, like (resolution). If the resolution of my computer screen is 96 > device pixels per CSS inch, (resolution: 96dpi) will evaluate to true. Since > 96 is not zero, (resolution) is true as well. > > No issue here. > > > >> I would guess that means that 0, odpi, etc should evaluate to false. > > > This third item says nothing about how to evaluate (min-resolution: 0dpi). > In the *second* item of the same list, the min- prefix is defined as > expressing "greater or equal to". 96dpi is greater than 0dpi, therefore > (min-resolution: 0dpi) should be true. > > But implementations seem to disagree. I think this is a bug, but I would > like to confirm: is there something else I missing in the spec that could > explain this behavior? Is there a use case where this behavior is desired? > > Chers, > -- > Simon Sapin -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Denmark Aps Langelinie Alle 35, DK-2100 Copenhagen CVR No. 76716919 This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 12:02:35 UTC