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

Re: [css-device-adaptation] Progress?

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 17:02:15 -0700
Cc: Rune Lillesveen <rune@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@gmail.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>, David Bokan <bokan@chromium.org>
Message-Id: <6E655972-2D62-4FF4-8A18-27A01593AD28@gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
> This is much of an implementation detail, I think. Bottom line, what
> I'm trying to say is that whatever pre-scanning, threaded html parser,
> or whatever optimizations you have today, the resource loading problem
> is exactly the same with <meta viewport> today when put in the same
> position in the document:
> <head>
>     <style>@viewport { ... }</style>
>     <meta name="viewport" content="...">
> </head>
> I agree, which is why I think we should limit that position for @viewport (and maybe also for <meta viewport>, if still feasible), to avoid/reduce that risk.

Sorry to respond late…

I’ve loaded stylesheets from the footer before, not because I thought it was a great place to do so, but because it was the only place where I could alter the HTML to add a custom style sheet. I’d like to maintain that flexibilty when needed, and still be able to use @viewport in my style sheet. Also, not all stylesheet/HTML combinations impact what images are loaded (I can tell you that sites where I have to do that sort of thing almost never have responsive image loading in the HTML, nor media queries in the default CSS), so the restriction might reduce styling flexibility without actually benefiting the Web site.
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2015 00:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:52 UTC