W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2002

Re: canvas <html> <body>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:07:04 +0100
Message-ID: <3CEBD038.7060908@hixie.ch>
To: Andrew Clover <and@doxdesk.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Andrew Clover wrote:
> 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.

Unless we add more prose to the spec that says that percentages on the root 
element are relative to the viewport dimensions.

> * - 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')?

There is nothing special about <html>. Rephrease the question using <div> 
instead of <html> and you'll see everything is just as well defined.

Ian Hickson
``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to
the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will
probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense
without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:07:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:01 UTC