- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:19:13 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:23:59 +0100, Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com> wrote: > I think small-screen browsers without zoom capabilities still should > implement @viewport. This is in fact how Opera mobile browsers used to > be in the pre-zoom era. We had two modes, the small-screen rendering > which tried to fit the content within the width of the screen through > degenerating the CSS. For the other mode (desktop mode, I think we > called it) we did something resembling @viewport with min-width where > the user would have to scroll to see the whole page, not necessarily > being able to zoom. > > Even if we will not see such browsers again, I think it proves the point > that zooming capabilities or scrollbars vs panning is not what should > decide if @viewport should be implemented or not. > > I think it is sensible, if not necessary, to implement @viewport for all > form factors, so I don't think there is a need to restrict it. I support this position. Also, I have not used windows 8/RT, but if my understanding is correct, the way the window manager behaves means that windows are sometimes snapped to half of the screen, making them as narrow as a mobile browser would be even when you're on a regular laptop, and that it is the need to adapt content to this kind of narrow windowed desktop browser that drove Microsoft to implement basic support for @viewport. To me, this is a perfectly legitimate use of @viewport, and the extra flexibility it has in addition to the meta viewport is there precisely to enable this kind of thing. - Florian
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 10:19:41 UTC