- From: Andrew Clover <and@doxdesk.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:50:58 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> It means "unspecified", just as with the previous case.
> As you can see, they are equivalent.
Okay. If you take that interpretation, they are equivalent (nearly *)
- and useless. If this is correct, there is no way an element's height
or vertical positioning can be based on the height of the viewport
without using fixed positioning. The initial containing block in this
case is not really a box, as only its width can ever be used for
anything.
Can you confirm this disappointing assessment of CSS's
capabilities?
* - but not in all cases. If you put a 100px height on <html> and
add an absolute-positioned child with %age top, is that
percentage relative to the 100px (as implied by 'root element
is ICB') or still undefined (as implied by 'root element is inside
ICB')?
> the spec should IMHO be further corrected to state that
> percentages on those properties are always defined. It is
> only percentages on the 'height' property of inflow
> children that causes any problems.
I totally agree. (As does Tantek, apparently.) Can one of the editors
comment on the likelihood of this being done as an erratum, or being
planned for the CSS 3 Positioning module?
--
Andrew Clover
mailto:and@doxdesk.com
http://and.doxdesk.com/
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 10:51:52 UTC