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

Re: Table height/width properties

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Glen Harman <gharman@erols.com>
cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0107021318090.17003-100000@is03.fas.harvard.edu>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Glen Harman wrote:
> 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.

This was an error:

>     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.

If you specify 'height: 100%' on everything up through BODY and HTML
then it will be explicitly specified (at least under some
interpretations of the spec).


L. David Baron        <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
Mozilla Contributor                      <URL: http://www.mozilla.org/ >
Invited Expert, W3C CSS WG          <URL: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ >
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 13:19:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:58 UTC