But values defined by the user with JS are *inside* the document itself. On 10 June 2013 16:04, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 15:23:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:31 UTC