3 ms·

> but AFAICT they will not do anything visible or useful They are very useful for people using reader mode. I wouldn't worry about sections, though, they're no

by MrJohz 2y ago

> but AFAICT they will not do anything visible or useful They are very useful for people using reader mode. I wouldn't worry about sections, though, they're not really used by many tools, as far as I'm aware. > Viewport meta tag It is not a hack, it is part of the html specification. You don't have to include it, but the browser defaults aren't great, and will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. Please always specify this tag, do not rely on browsers to break backwards compatibility because they won't.

chrismorgan 2y ago
>> Viewport meta tag > It is not a hack, it is part of the html specification. You don't have to include it, but the browser defaults aren't great, and will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. Please always specify this tag, do not rely on browsers to break backwards compatibility because they won't. It’s not part of the HTML Standard; what little underspecification there is is in the CSS Viewport Module Level 1 draft <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport-1/#viewport-meta https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport-1/#viewport-meta>. The HTML Standard refers to it once, while essentially talking about something completely different <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#speculative-html-parsing:the-meta-element-3 https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#speculat...>. The spec is incomplete and atrocious, and no one seems interested in improving it—it’s sat stagnant for more than a decade. It does things like use strtod to parse numbers, so that in theory (unless there’s some other document I don’t know about that replaces the meaning of “strtod”) an English user will parse initial-scale=1.5 correctly, while French would parse it as 1.0—but I hope no one has actually implemented it that way. (Why is it part of CSS? Rendering stuff is mostly shifted into CSS’s domain, and also most of the things that started in meta tags arguably because of bad decisions end up being shifted into CSS proper, and that was the idea with @viewport, which was part of CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1; but since everyone was apparently so supremely bored by the whole thing, they gave up <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766>. But because it’s rendering, CSSWG is still probably the best place for it.) —⁂— Anyway: although it’s underspecified, it is… sufficiently consistent and settled, and absolutely invaluable. Every document being started from scratch, which has any intention of caring about mobile-sized screens at all, should include <meta name=viewport content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">.

by MrJohz 2y ago

chrismorgan 2y ago

>> Viewport meta tag > It is not a hack, it is part of the html specification. You don't have to include it, but the browser defaults aren't great, and will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. Please always specify this tag, do not rely on browsers to break backwards compatibility because they won't. It’s not part of the HTML Standard; what little underspecification there is is in the CSS Viewport Module Level 1 draft <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport-1/#viewport-meta https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport-1/#viewport-meta>. The HTML Standard refers to it once, while essentially talking about something completely different <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#speculative-html-parsing:the-meta-element-3 https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#speculat...>. The spec is incomplete and atrocious, and no one seems interested in improving it—it’s sat stagnant for more than a decade. It does things like use strtod to parse numbers, so that in theory (unless there’s some other document I don’t know about that replaces the meaning of “strtod”) an English user will parse initial-scale=1.5 correctly, while French would parse it as 1.0—but I hope no one has actually implemented it that way. (Why is it part of CSS? Rendering stuff is mostly shifted into CSS’s domain, and also most of the things that started in meta tags arguably because of bad decisions end up being shifted into CSS proper, and that was the idea with @viewport, which was part of CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1; but since everyone was apparently so supremely bored by the whole thing, they gave up <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766>. But because it’s rendering, CSSWG is still probably the best place for it.) —⁂— Anyway: although it’s underspecified, it is… sufficiently consistent and settled, and absolutely invaluable. Every document being started from scratch, which has any intention of caring about mobile-sized screens at all, should include <meta name=viewport content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">.