- From: David Newton <david@davidnewton.ca>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:06:37 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Nov 12, 2013, at 3:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > Media Queries currently states that it purposely went with the > min/max- prefix approach for range-type queries specifically to avoid > any issues with the "<" character in HTML/XML syntax. > > These characters have no issues in modern <style> elements, though I > suspect they might once have had some, before all browsers recognized > the contents of <style> as plain text. > > Thus, it may be time to reconsider this decision. I believe that the > min/max prefixes are harder to use for authors. You always have to be > careful with the words "min" and "max", as they can mean opposite > things depending on exactly how you're using them. For example, the > min() function selects the smaller of its argument, but if you have a > "minimum number", then you take the *larger* of the minimum and the > attempted value. > > Instead, I propose we add another syntax possibility to MQs: > > (width < 400px) > (device-height > 1000px) > etc > > The meaning is the obvious one. Spaces aren't required around the > characters. You can use "<", ">", "<=", or ">=". > > Possibly extensions are to allow values on either side, like: > > (400px < width < 800px) > > ...similar to how Python does, for easier statements of ranges. This > would make some common practices less fragile and order-dependent. > > This idea was independently suggested by the IndieUI group, for > similar usability reasons. > > Thoughts? > > ~TJ > I love this idea. Would problems w/ legacy browsers only show up if the CSS was in the HTML (i.e. in <style>), or could we expect problems for linked stylesheets as well?
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 14:07:03 UTC