W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Table height/width properties

From: Glen Harman <gharman@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:01:18 -0400
Message-ID: <009201c10318$9d6dc600$68fca4d8@anaconda>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Manos Batsis wrote...

> I'm sorry but I believe you are mistaken. From what I know of,
> percentage width is calculated against direct parent width values.

Well, if width specifies content width I presume that refers to content
edge.  So if it is calculated directly against parent width values, I take
that to mean it is relative to the parent's content edge and thus the
parent's content edge equates with the containing block established
by said parent.  But the definition of padding edge, found in section

    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html#box-dimensions

says that it is padding-edge which defines the containing block.

> Height is another story though. Check
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visudet.html#the-height-property

I've looked at this but I still don't understand what, specifically, is
precluding the application of height in a manner that is similar to the
application of width.  Oh, wait...

    Height <percentage>
    Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with
    respect to the height of the generated box's containing block. If the
    height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it
    depends on content height), the value is interpreted like 'auto'.

maybe it is that last sentence which is driving this?  In my first test
( http://www.gharman.com/tablesize1.html ) outer table, outer table td,
inner table, and inner table td all have height:100% properties.  But
if percentage entries qualify as "not specified explicitly" and my
properties are being ignored and treated as auto, I guess that
might account for the "shrinking" I'm seeing.
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 13:01:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:09 GMT