W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

RE: Zoom use case

From: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:19:10 +0000
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Karl Dubost <kdubost@mozilla.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Ian Kilpatrick" <ikilpatrick@chromium.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR03MB1439D59884EE98D662A86DF4A4A80@CY1PR03MB1439.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>On Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:55:27 +0100, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
>> Last we spoke about this in New York, Microsoft wanted to either kill
>> the zoom property (i.e. actually remove it from the implementations
>> that support it), or to spec it and have it interoperably implemented
>> across the board. The general preference was in favor of killing it,
>> but Apple had some reservations and wanted to check more data before
>> committing to killing it.
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015May/0282.html

>> I may have missed something, but I believe we did not revisit the
>> topic later on, so we are still there: There's a general preference
>> for getting rid of it, but no commitment, and we have a proposed spec
>> that we could adopt if we decide to keep it after all.
>> I believe the ball is in Apple's court.
>I see there's a use counter for 'zoom' (with a value other than 1) for

>~0.9% is pretty high...
>Usage of 'zoom' (any value):

>~42%, crazy high. It's not clear to me if zoom:1 is a no-op or if it does
>Simon Pieters
>Opera Software

Yes, but in the instances that are other than 1 is there actual issues, on top of that - are they issues that can easily be achieved using other CSS methodologies. I still think that we should just get rid of it, and the resulting breakage will probably be cosmetic at best, if noticeable at all.


Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 20:19:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC