- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:01:52 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/29/13 12:56 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Unless I'm thinking incorrectly, it doesn't preclude parallel layout, > as long as the two viewport elements are at the same level of > "nesting". Any selectors relying on viewport sizes can only rely on > already-resolved ones, which is a set shared between the two, so they > don't need to interact directly. So a min-width selector for one of the viewports can't affect the size of an element in the other one? If so, that's non-obvious from your description.... >> (It's also not entirely clear to me how well it plays with interruptible >> layout that does not always run to completion and various other things, >> honestly.) > > Right, I'm less and less sure that this works, unfortunately. :/ > Viewport elements themselves can give nice benefits, but this seems > like it might erase a lot of other speed benefits we'd like to have. That's the problem I'm having, yes. I'm all in favor of something like viewports, I think (as long as they're declared in markup, not CSS); I'm a little more cautious about selecting on the size of the viewports if it can do anything more than what viewport-size media queries for subframes can do right now. -Boris
Received on Friday, 29 March 2013 17:02:21 UTC