To the extent possible under law, the editors have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work. In addition, as of 30 May 2014, the editors have made this specification available under the Open Web Foundation Agreement Version 1.0, which is available at http://www.openwebfoundation.org/legal/the-owf-1-0-agreements/owfa-1-0. Parts of this work may be from another specification document. If so, those parts are instead covered by the license of that specification document.
This document captures the use cases and requirements for standardizing a solution for “element queries.”
Found a bug, typo, or issue? Please file a bug on GitHub!
Given a complex responsive layout, developers often require a more granular level of control over how the contents of an individual module will respond relative to the size of their parent container rather than the viewport size. This is prohibitive to the goal of creating modular, independent components, often requiring a number of redundant CSS, complex exception cases, and workarounds, and the problem compounds itself depending on how dramatically a module adapts at each of its breakpoints.
This document aims to present some of the use cases that an “element query” syntax would solve, in allowing authors to define layouts within an individual module on the basis of the size of the module itself rather than the viewport. The goal is to demonstate a need for a method of allowing content respond to its container’s dimensions (as opposed to the overall viewport size), to facilitate the constuction of layouts comprised of many modular, independent HTML components with a minimum of duplicated CSS and overrides specific to the modules’ parent containers.
This document reflects the efforts of members from the Responsive Images Community Group (RICG), and with ongoing feedback from the designer/developer community via blog posts, informal polls, and other social media sources. The RICG’s goal for this document is to make sure that author requirements for element queries have been documented.
min-widthmedia query to reflow content.
In our example site’s homepage layout this module can occupy containing elements of varying widths, governed by multiple breakpoints. In small viewports, we’ll be using a linear layout where each of our five module occupies the full viewport—this layout is covered by the base styles outside of our media query. At higher breakpoints, these modules will be displayed side-by-side: three across, then below thatm two across. The three-across layout will be covered by the global styles within our viewport-based media query. Parent-specific overrides will need to be written for the two-across layout, as these modules will need to shift to their wide-format at a smaller viewport size than the ones above them.
In order to accomplish this we’ll need to duplicate all of this module’s “wide layout” styles into a second viewport-based media query—set to apply at a smaller min-width than the global breakpoint styles—with all of our styles scoped to a parent container. This now means that any future edits or bug fixes to the wide-format layout styles will need to be made in multiple places, and this maintenance cost increases exponentially with each module-level breakpoint required.
Similarly, introducing a new context unlike the previous two—shown in figure 4 with the introduction of a “sidebar” on an interior page layout—means duplicating or overriding all of our module’s media queries yet again.
The module in this new sidebar context will never need to reflow to the wider layout, and as such we’re left with two options: scoping all of our modules—with the exception of the two-across layout—to a parent class, or introducing a new media query that overrides all of our wide-layout styles based on the sidebar’s parent class. Despite the relative simplicity of our module and our overall page layouts, we’re left with a bloated and difficult to maintain stylesheet.
What this document proposes is the addition of an “element query” syntax, allowing breakpoints to be applied based on the width of a parent container. For the purposes of this example, we would be then be able to scope out modules’ layouts to the size of the module itself.
In doing so, we’re able to assemble a layout without parent-specific media queries, styles, or overrides.
A complete list of participants of the Responsive Images Community Group is available at the W3C Community Group Website.
Conformance requirements are expressed with a combination of descriptive assertions and RFC 2119 terminology. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in the normative parts of this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase letters in this specification.
All of the text of this specification is normative except sections explicitly marked as non-normative, examples, and notes. [RFC2119]
Examples in this specification are introduced with the words “for example”
or are set apart from the normative text with
class="example", like this:
Informative notes begin with the word “Note”
and are set apart from the normative text with
class="note", like this:
Note, this is an informative note.
No properties defined.