- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:04:03 -0700
- To: Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com> wrote: > I love this idea, but is there actually much scope for new *media* queries > to be defined, given the limited information available to the DOM? > > I'd argue not, and that the Modernizr / theming use cases may be more > common. > > I think there's already a problem with confusion between browser features > and media/device features (e.g. my old favourite: browser supporting the > Touch Events API vs device having a touchscreen). Values set by users in JS > are unlikely to accurately represent a feature of the media. I disagree that there's an important difference. The point of MQ is to test for things that are outside the document itself; that's what's meant by "the medium", as it's the context in which the document itself is embedded. I don't think it's important to draw this distinction for authors. More importantly, I don't think it's worthwhile to create a third type of conditional rule which has identical syntax to @media, solely to represent a dubious semantic distinction. I'd support this if there was no good way to make safe syntax for the author-defined stuff, but there is, so I'd greatly prefer sticking with @media as it is. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 15:04:53 UTC