- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 17:00:34 +0300
- To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On 04/21/2016 07:28 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: > Hi, > > (This is listed as Issue 1 in css-page.) > > The fact that the width, height, aspect-ratio, and orientation media queries do not respond to page sizes set in @page makes it really hard to do responsive design properly. > > If you've designed your page using media queries to work well across a whole range of sizes, and you want to use the size property of @page to pick a size when printing, you're out of luck. > > The page will be sized to what you asked, but the size that the > query will respond to will not be that, but instead the size that > the page would have had, had you not specified anything. Which is > totally useless. > > We've handled this for @viewport, and we should do it here as well. > > The good news is that Chrome (which I believe is the only browser > to honor @page's size property) already does it, as shown in this > quick and dirty TC: http://jsbin.com/nabufum I think it would be great for this to work. It's noted as an issue in the Paged Media draft: http://drafts.csswg.org/css-page/#page-size-prop What needs to be specified is exactly how it interacts with Media Queries, since you could have a 'size' declaration inside an MQ that makes the MQ no longer apply... Currently the Paged Media spec makes @page { size } within a size-querying MQ effectively invalid, so that it's possible to make this work. Is this what Chrome does? You also need to specify *which* @page 'size' gets applied, if different pages have different sizes. I think the best thing to do here is to just take the 'size' declaration in a plain @page. (Btw, a related issue is having the author specify a series of preferred sizes, since printers sometimes have more than one size available.) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 14:01:13 UTC