- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:02:47 -0400
- To: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> | Nothing, until someone can't load your CSS. Then your document becomes > | nearly devoid of meaning, structure, and comprehensibility. > > I doubt you should target *any* page which you design nowdays to browsers not > supporting CSS. I didn't say you should be targeting suvh browsers. I merely said that if you have a document made of <div>s and <span>s and a linked stylesheet to style it, then the document is meaningless if the linked stylesheet cannot be retrieved for any reason (eg the file gets renamed or deleted or whatever). > | > Using 'width:auto' when you need div taking all width, is stupid, STUPID > | > approach! > | > | Would you care to clarify this point of view? Why is this stupid? > > If someone familiar with ,mathematics (or in particular, with geometry) - he > thinks of something as XX percent of another thing (xx/100 fraction) or A/B > fraction. > And you can understand width: 100% *without* redaing W3C CSS specs. So you're having a problem with the definition of "width" as the content width then, I take it? That seems to be a common point of view... Boris -- Windows 95: (noun): 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 14:12:46 UTC