Re: [css-device-adapt] Apply @viewport to top-level documents only

> > I don't think this is a good idea. I think one of the main use case of
> > @viewport is to be embedded into @media to fallback to a known amount of
> > fixed-size layouts even under any real pixel size as viewport, or for 
> > slide
> > decks this is a way to make sure your content is always rendered under a
> > fixed-size resolution and "scaled-to-fit" into the user browser. 
> > Documents
> > inside an iframe totally want this behavior to continue to work.
>
> There is no "continue to work" here as this has not been supported by
> implementations before AFAIK (meta viewport or prefixed @viewport).
> I'm worried about the progression of the spec and the implementations.
> So my proposal is to postpone to a level 2.

Wouldn't it be better to simply fix the implementations? Just to understand 
the concerns, how hard would that be?

If I have a look at the samples at [1] which is the reference of the 
@viewport at-rule, I'm afraid to say any website relying on any of those 
@viewport examples will break in an iframe. This is a huge fail according to 
me.  If the goal is to provide an alternative to <meta viewport> that is not 
more reliable than <meta viewport> (i.e. that is unsuitable for any RWD 
purpose), as a web author I think this is kinda sad.

If the concern is the impossibility to make the spec progresses further down 
the standardization track because of lack of implementation supporting this 
feature right now, would it be possible to rewrite the statement as a MAY?

-- User agents MAY not apply certain @viewport declarations
-- on non-top-level documents, at the UA discretion. It is
-- however recommended to support the "width" and "height"
-- properties even in those documents.

This makes it possible for browser to support "width" and "height" only 
without being in contradiction with the spec, while still making the feature 
optional which enables to count current implementation in the 
standardization track.

Would that be an acceptable compromise?
François

Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 12:37:25 UTC