- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:54:02 +0200
- To: "Sylvain Galineau" <galineau@adobe.com>, "Rune Lillesveen" <rune@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
> Optional support effectively makes UA incompatibility conformant. It > doesn't mean we shouldn't do it but aside from assertions of a 'huge fail' > I do not think it's clear why the benefits are worth the potential compat > pain for authors? If the idea is to remove the restriction in level 2, this will happen anyway, won't it? The issue here is that only "width" and "height" totally make sense for documents that are not top-level (and, I believe, are desired to make css device adaptation suitable for responsive web design) while the others may require heavier specification and implementation work (and some like 'orientation' just do not make sense at all in an iframe). The aim of my proposal is to make sure browsers can implement the much-desired "width" and "height" support for (non-seamless) iframes while not being blocked by the slow work on the other properties. If there's another option that satisfy this premise, I'm more than ok to take it, I just didn't find any other. If implementors are OK supporting "(min-|max-)?(width|height)" in level 1 already, I think another such option would be "To the notable exception of the 'width' and 'height' properties (which must work anywhere), declarations in @viewport rules should be applied on top-level documents only".
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 14:54:24 UTC