Re: Intent to ship: Some of the mediaqueries-4 syntax improvements.
On 6/25/18 11:01 PM, L. David Baron wrote: How does the particular set of features that you're planning to ship vs. not ship align with what other browsers have shipped (or are close shipping)? I'm not aware of any other browser implementing or shipping any of the changes from MQ3 to MQ4, so we'd be the first to support these. This subset is somewhat straight-forward, and spec author feedback is clear I think: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2017Feb/0036.html I'd be fine not shipping it for now and keeping it behind a pref, but I don't think it's worth it given how unlikely it is to change. Let me know if you think otherwise though. -- Emilio -David On Monday 2018-06-25 21:13 +0200, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: In bug 145 I plan to land most of the syntax improvements to mediaqueries-4. Some of the features included are: * Allowing operators such as >, <, >=, or <= in media feature expressions, which allows to properly exclude media queries in a way min-* and max-* cannot, like: @media (width >= 900px) { some rules } @media (width < 900px) { some other rules } Guarantees that either `some rules` or `some other rules` apply, which is something that is not guaranteed by the existing syntax (see [1] or [2], for example). * Or expressions, and arbitrary expression nesting like: @media ((width >= 500px) and (width <= 900px)) or (not (orientation: portrait)) Things that are _not_ included are: * The range syntax, or allowing values before the feature name, that is: @media (500px > width) or (500px < width < 900px) This is nice, but not so trivial to implement, and you can either reverse the expression (`(width <= 500px)` in the first case), or use the expanded version of it using `and` expressions for the second. * The changes to serialization and parsing that allows basically anything in a feature expression to be valid, that is, treating as a valid media query something like: @media (orientation: portrait) or (garbage) Bug 1469174 and bug 1469173 are tracking those two, respectively. Let me know if you find unknown issues, or think we shouldn't ship this. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Intent to ship: Some of the mediaqueries-4 syntax improvements.
How does the particular set of features that you're planning to ship vs. not ship align with what other browsers have shipped (or are close shipping)? -David On Monday 2018-06-25 21:13 +0200, Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > In bug 145 I plan to land most of the syntax improvements to > mediaqueries-4. > > Some of the features included are: > > * Allowing operators such as >, <, >=, or <= in media feature expressions, > which allows to properly exclude media queries in a way min-* and max-* > cannot, like: > > @media (width >= 900px) { some rules } > @media (width < 900px) { some other rules } > > Guarantees that either `some rules` or `some other rules` apply, which is > something that is not guaranteed by the existing syntax (see [1] or [2], for > example). > > * Or expressions, and arbitrary expression nesting like: > > @media ((width >= 500px) and (width <= 900px)) or (not (orientation: > portrait)) > > Things that are _not_ included are: > > * The range syntax, or allowing values before the feature name, that is: > > @media (500px > width) or (500px < width < 900px) > >This is nice, but not so trivial to implement, and you can either reverse > the expression (`(width <= 500px)` in the first case), or use the expanded > version of it using `and` expressions for the second. > > * The changes to serialization and parsing that allows basically anything > in a feature expression to be valid, that is, treating as a valid media > query something like: > > @media (orientation: portrait) or (garbage) > > Bug 1469174 and bug 1469173 are tracking those two, respectively. > > Let me know if you find unknown issues, or think we shouldn't ship this. -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Intent to ship: Some of the mediaqueries-4 syntax improvements.
Hi, In bug 145 I plan to land most of the syntax improvements to mediaqueries-4. Some of the features included are: * Allowing operators such as >, <, >=, or <= in media feature expressions, which allows to properly exclude media queries in a way min-* and max-* cannot, like: @media (width >= 900px) { some rules } @media (width < 900px) { some other rules } Guarantees that either `some rules` or `some other rules` apply, which is something that is not guaranteed by the existing syntax (see [1] or [2], for example). * Or expressions, and arbitrary expression nesting like: @media ((width >= 500px) and (width <= 900px)) or (not (orientation: portrait)) Things that are _not_ included are: * The range syntax, or allowing values before the feature name, that is: @media (500px > width) or (500px < width < 900px) This is nice, but not so trivial to implement, and you can either reverse the expression (`(width <= 500px)` in the first case), or use the expanded version of it using `and` expressions for the second. * The changes to serialization and parsing that allows basically anything in a feature expression to be valid, that is, treating as a valid media query something like: @media (orientation: portrait) or (garbage) Bug 1469174 and bug 1469173 are tracking those two, respectively. Let me know if you find unknown issues, or think we shouldn't ship this. Thanks! -- Emilio [1]: http://damienclarke.me/code/posts/those-1px-gaps-between-media-queries-can-be-a-problem [2]: https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/19197 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform