W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2015

Re: [mediaqueries] additional types of media features

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 16:29:22 +0100
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <31500A6B-9B7A-4FBD-9052-E34891FE05E1@rivoal.net>
To: christoph142@gmx.com

> On 24 Feb 2015, at 11:08, christoph142@gmx.com wrote:
> 
> I withdraw my request.
> 
> I forgot about the existence of view-mode  <http://www.w3.org/TR/view-mode/#view-modes>media feature.
> This caters for both use cases (windowed/floating for embedded and minimized for previews).
> “minimized” is supposed to be used for “dynamic graphical representation being available” though. Not sure if this is 100% correct to use for static previews then. I’ll leave this decision up to you.

Hi,

Sorry for the slow answer.

I agree that ''view-mode: minimized'' should cover what you expected for the preview use case.

To distinguish between static previews and dynamic ones, you may do something like this:

@media (viewmode: minimized) and (update-frequency: none) {...}

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/mediaqueries-4/#update-frequency <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/mediaqueries-4/#update-frequency>

I agree that the view-mode text is not ideally phrased, but I take "dynamic" to mean dependent on the content, rather than animated, so that still works out.

> The embedded feature request originates from this discussion: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=459959 <https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=459959> (see comment #1, too).


For the emebdeed use case, "view-mode: floating" is not expected to match for iframes and the like, but given the use case described in the bug quoted above, it would indeed be appropriate there.

 - Florian
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2015 15:29:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:30 UTC