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

Re: [mediaqueries] scripting

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 18:24:31 -0500
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56D381AF.6030505@inkedblade.net>
On 02/26/2016 02:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

It's not about hostile authors. It's about whether I can count on
onload firing before the UA stops handling my JS.

~fantasai
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2016 23:25:01 UTC

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