- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 10:41:31 +0200
- To: Lucas Wiener <lucas@wiener.se>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On 05 May 2015, at 10:25, Lucas Wiener <lucas@wiener.se> wrote: > tis 5 maj 2015 kl 09:41 skrev Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>: > >> On 05 May 2015, at 08:59, Lucas Wiener <lucas@wiener.se> wrote: >> >> Okay thank you both for the explanation. >> >> Do you know if there are any sources that I could cite regarding this? > > The 1996 REC for CSS1 says: > > "old UAs will ignore the 'STYLE' element, but its content will be > treated as part of the document body, and rendered as such. > During a transition phase, 'STYLE' element content may be > hidden using SGML comments" > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1-961217#containment-in-html > > If it was only a problem with UAs considered old in 1996, I think > it's fair to say we should be safe by now :)Thanks! > > Indeed. > Do you perhaps have any sources that states that MQ was designed with min/max-width due to that, and that >=/<= is really preferred? >=/<= is new. It could have been introduced a long time ago, but it wasn't, so for now, you should stick with min- max- if you actually expect things to work. Once they get broad support, both syntaxes will be supported forever, so which is preferred is up to you, depending on what you think is more readable. Most people would prefer >=/<=, but that's really up to you. As for sources, I'm sure there's some old mails somewhere discussing this, but I am not sure where they are. - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 5 May 2015 08:41:55 UTC