- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 11:28:10 -0700
- To: Hyojin Song <hyojin22.song@lge.com>
- Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:28 AM, Hyojin Song <hyojin22.song@lge.com> wrote: > As a result, I think this syntax(one value of device-radius and relationship btw > length and percentages) is the best way as of now, but there might be better way > to test display's shape using Media queries. The other platforms have very > simple method to identify the display shape. (e.g. isRound() in Android) The > upcoming displays could be well handled using the device-radius described above > for the time being. Yes, I agree that a single value is best, but my issue is that *the current definition doesn't work*, for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread. It still needs fixing. (I think Florian's suggested fix is far too complicated for such a simple value, and I believe it's also ill-defined in a number of ways.) Just saying that it's relative to the width, or the height, or the geometric mean of the two, is sufficient. Percentages and lengths *do* need to be relative to the same thing. If they're not, then you can't use calc() well. We already made this mistake a few times in CSS, and we have a wiki page dedicated to warning against it: https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/calc-and-percentages ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2015 18:28:58 UTC