W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 1999

Re: min-font-size

From: Oren Ben-Kiki <oren@capella.co.il>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 09:03:25 +0200
Message-ID: <002d01bed0eb$a1c692b0$5402a8c0@oren.capella.co.il>
To: "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>An alternative idea, which has been talked about in the past in other
>lists (and which, I believe, was also suggested by David Baron) is to
>introduce two new declarations similar to !important: !minimum and
>!maximum. These would have a subtly and carefully crafted effect on
>the cascade so that the correct value was always chosen.
>An example of how this could be used is:
>   * { font-size: 9px ! minimum; font-size: 200% ! maximum; }
>Unfortunately, to my knowledge noone has as yet worked out a suitable set
>of rules to make the cascade work well with !maximum and !minimum. (I do
>not know if anyone has even tried).

What is wrong with behaving as if each "attr: value" is a shorthand for
"attr: value ! minimum; attr: value ! maximum"? Cascading could then be
handled according to the current rules.

I'd be more worried about clearly defining what algorithm the browser should
use to try to satisfy these constraints. Different algorithms will yield
different results if the system is under/over constrained. Is there a "best"
way to do it, so CSS would remain well-defined?

Have fun,

Received on Sunday, 18 July 1999 03:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:50 UTC