W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [mediaqueries] calc() and other syntax restrictions (was: Re: Validating media queries in Java)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:58:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD5ORvFEsEuH_AVYWhH96WByg129fstP_ucP0D8DWdLwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: gunther.pilz@gmail.com
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Gunther Pilz <gunther.pilz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I know this a very, very old topic but as I actually "stumbled upon" this
> exact problem I would like to respond.
> You wrote:
>> No doubt somebody some day wants to write
>>     @media screen and (min-width: calc(20em + 6px))
> and
>> But I agree. We can exclude calc().
> I would like to contradict. ;-)
> I also do not see the sense of the above code example, but it would be most
> helpful if someone could write:
> @media screen and (min-width: calc(20em + 1px))
> Using em based media queries has several advantages over using pixel based
> ones.
> And also having your rules stacked instead of overlapping might be the
> better option for some cases.
> For this case it would be the only pure CSS based possibility to ensure that
> there will be no gaps (in case of larger basic font size) or (unwanted)
> overlaps (in case of smaller basic font size) in your ruleset.
> Because as the EM based values depend on the users basic font size, there is
> no EM 'value' that will always be computed as 1px!
> I think it is worth to expand the calc() syntax to also being used with
> media queries!

Can you provide more context to this?  The email you're responding to
appears to be so old that it's not in my mail archives, and I've been
on the list for 6-7 years.  ^_^  A link to the email  on
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/> would be great.

Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 17:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:29 UTC