So do I read this correctly that for #3, 8 means 8.x so a max-version of 8 means any browser agent with a major version of 8 or less an not even look at the minor version?
If so, I like 3 as well. -Andrew On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Blake Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If we agree that we like the we like the media query syntax and that the > only issue is how to handle less than (as opposed the <=) for the > max-version, then we can just collect up the proposals and pick one: > > 1) The verbose and explicit (max-version-less-than:8). > 2) Define that for the version feature, max-version means < not <=. > Inconsistent with other uses of max (max-version:8) > 3) Let the skinning author provide enough precision to avoid the need to > distinguish between < 8 and <= a number that apporaches 8 (max-version:7.99) > 4) Add an operator suffix (max-version-lt:8) > > 1) is gross > 2) is potentially confusing due to inconsistency > 3) might not be immediately obvious and could theoretically have precision > problems > 4) is not immediately obvious either but incredibly flexible > > I vote for 3) since it gets the job done and doesn't preclude doing more > later. > > -- Blake Sullivan > > > > > Andrew Robinson said the following On 4/17/2008 11:53 AM PT: > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html > > > > @import url("loudvoice.css") aural; > > > > so here are multiple groups of characters that show that spaces are > > acceptable (import url and aural keywords in one "bunch") > > > > url("loudvoice.css") > > shows that parenthesis with at least one argument is acceptable > > > > @media screen, print { > > Shown that a comma separated list, unlike normal CSS selectors applies > > to the whole @ (meaning that it wasn't "@meda screen, @media print") > > > > From css3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-reader/): > > @import "my-print-style.css" print; > > here, a quoted string is permissible (goes with the url values in CSS > rules) > > > > <?xml-stylesheet href="style1.css" type="text/css" > > media="screen and (color) and (max-width: 400px"?> > > <?xml-stylesheet href="style2.css" type="text/css" > > media="reader and (max-device-ratio: 1/1)"?> > > Hmmm.... interesting, but do we want to reuse something that relates > > to CSS but is not in a CSS file? > > > > @media reader and (grid: 0) > > Ah, now we are talking. This looks like what Blake was referring to > > > > From http://www.css3.info/preview/media-queries/: > > @media all and (min-width: 640px) { > > Even better, showing an "all" keyword and having "normal CSS > > properties" in parens. > > > > http://www.css3.info/preview/attribute-selectors/: > > Do we dare take RegExp like syntax from attr. selectors and apply them > > to @agent rules? > > > > > > So I can see Blake's suggestion being backed by these, but IMO > > "max-version-less-than:8" is too long to remember. > > > > Perhaps just: > > IE 5.5 or greater: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 5.5) > > > > IE 5.0 or greater: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 5) > > > > IE >= 5.0 and < 6.0: > > @agent ie and (version: 5) > > or (I like this one less): > > @agent ie and (major-version: 5) > > > > IE <= 6.0: > > @agent ie and (max-version: 6) > > > > IE < 6: > > @agent ie and (max-version: 5.9) > > > > IE >= 6.0 and < 8.0: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 7.9) > > same as: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 7) > > > > IE >= 6.0 and <= 8.0: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 8.0) > > > > IE >= 6.0 and <= 8.x: > > @agent ie and (min-version: 6) and (max-version: 8) > > > > So x.y (ie 5.5) means precisely that, no vagueness and x (ie 6) means > > major version x regardless of minor version. If it is too hard to > > parse the decimal and remember it, "max-major-version", > > "min-major-version" and "major-version" could be used for integer only > > comparison with the major version and "max-version", "min-version" and > > "version" could be used for full major.minor comparison. > > > > I think using something like 7.9 or 7.99 could theoretically be used > > for less than but not equal to. I think the fewer number of keywords > > the clearer it will be to use. Just my opinion. > > > > Just adding some thoughts to chew on since concrete ideas were asked for. > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Cristi Toth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > You're right, I should have discussed the format before committing it. > > > I started fixing the issue using the format that was specified there... > > > (there weren't to many comments on that issue btw...) > > > During I was fixing it, I noticed that XSS suppported multiple > versions, > > > so I adapted what was suggested on the issue to support that too. > > > > > > Anyway, lets get this subject out in a new thread > > > and stick here to discussing the format. > > > > > > Guys, those of you that suggested some general guidelines, they all > sound > > > good, > > > but please try to think of some concrete format that comply with those > > > guidelines. > > > > > > If we decide a final format and implement it until its get released, > then no > > > big harm done. > > > So please be constructive ;) > > > > > > Thanks for any feedback! > > > > > > cheers, > > > -- > > > > > > Cristi Toth > > > > > > ------------- > > > Codebeat > > > www.codebeat.ro > > > > > > > > > >
