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

Re: [mediaqueries] scripting

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:09:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBgDErDN21KY8o9UO1GmUZJUM7QkfFcOa3SH3FRUy52gQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2016, at 3:05 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
>> That makes sense to me (otherwise I would not hve proposed it), but
>> I am not entirely sure what the requirement should be. How about
>> going at least as far as firing the DOMContentLoaded event? Or maybe
>> the load event?
> DOMContentLoaded would be better. We should have a cut off like that for
> implementation testing. But not the load event. A slow loading picture
> shouldn't change the CSS used for printing.

This sort of discussion is precisely why I don't think we should pin
it down.  Give that as an *example* of where a reasonable cutoff might
be, perhaps.

But trying to safeguard users ahead-of-time against entirely
theoretical hostile-due-to-stupidity browsers by *literally guessing*
what an appropriate cut-off might be is not a useful way to spend our
time, and it will only cause further questions down the line.  In all
the *browsers that actually exist*, it's extremely clear which
category they fall into from the plain-text description of each, and
there's no reason to suppose that future browsers won't be similarly
easy to classify.

Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 19:10:47 UTC

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