- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:01:27 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:10 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) > > See this I would expect <= and >= to also work: > > (400px <= width < 800px) > > Would it? Yes! I guess you have to be consistent with the directions, because mixing < and > is nonsensical, but mixing < and <= is totally fine and a good idea. (Half-open ranges!) ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2013 23:02:14 UTC