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

Re: Please critique and advise

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:41:45 GMT
Message-Id: <199911291541.JAA12008@x43.deja.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
In article <m37lj44wsb.fsf@gododdin.jasmine.org.uk>,
  Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
> Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > Second, should text wrap around a floating div (as it does in
Netscape
> > > 4 and IE 4 and 5) or is it correct for text to overwrite blank
areas
> > > of a floating div (as it does in Mozilla M8)?
> > In the case of your (totally wrong) style sheet, the behaviour is
> > undefined given that your float lacks a width declaration, thus
making
> > it invalid.
>
> Thank you for this information. Can you point me to the reference in
> the standards documents where this rule is expressed.
>
> > /* [My comments -
> > 1. Do not close comments with more than one * - **/ will cause loss
of
> > style.
>
> This is not my reading of
> <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#comments>; could
> you indicate where you believe the standards suggest this?
>
> >
> > DIV.navpage
> > {
> >     float: left;
> >     padding-left: 0em;
> >     padding-top: 0em;
> >     padding-right: 3em;
> >     padding-bottom: 6em;
> > }
> > /* This lacks a width - should be width: 25% (ish) (I can't tell
from
> > your invalid weft.co.uk frameset declarations (they add up to more
than
> > 100%!) */
>
> No, with respect, they don't. See
> <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/present/frames.html#edef-FRAMESET>
> In particular, note that according to the standard:
>
>  'Absolute lengths that do not sum to 100% of the real available space
>   should be adjusted by the user agent.  When underspecified,
remaining
>   space should be allotted proportionally to each view. When
>   overspecified, each view should be reduced according to its
specified
>   proportion of the total space.'
>
> and once again, I would be grateful if you could point me to the place
> in the standard where it says that floating elements should have
> specified width. I deliberately omitted width in specifying the
> floating element in order to allow the user agent as much flexibility
as
> possible in making best use of the available space: if this was wrong
> then I would like to know why.
>
> > P:first-letter
> > /* Only works in Opera - you'll have to mark them up with SPANs to
get
> > them to work */
> > {
> >     font-size: 200%;
> >     float: left;
> > /* Missing width declaration - required on float. Should read width:
1em
> > */
>
> Could you perhaps explain how this point came to be missed
> out of <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/selector.html#first-letter>?
>
> > P.S. I sympathise re: float, the spec is quite horrendous, and in
many
> > cases totally wrong.
>
> I'm sorry, but I simply can't understand how the specification can be
> 'wrong'. The specification expresses the standard; applications either
> conform to the standard, or they don't.
>
> --
> simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> 	Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel
> 	has been switched off.
>
Received on Monday, 29 November 1999 10:42:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT