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

Re: CSS3[the box model]: Overflow values

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:21:46 -0400
To: Adam van den Hoven <list@adamvandenhoven.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020905122146.B19262@is02.fas.harvard.edu>

On Tuesday 2002-08-27 12:18 -0700, Adam van den Hoven wrote:
> In addition to the existing values for overflow I would like to
> propose the addition of "grow" or "stretch" or "resize" possibly with
> "-x" and "-y" variants. 

This problem could also be solved with the 'intrinsic' and
'min-intrinsic' values for the 'width' property that I proposed [1],
although I don't like the names all that much.  (Would 'preferred' and
'minimum' be better?)  CSS also would need text to describe how they
work, but it already needs that text.  (I think I made the mistake of
volunteering to write it at the last working group meeting. :-)

This would allow you to use the declarations:

  min-height: 200px;
  height: intrinsic;

or the declarations:

  min-height: intrinsic;
  height: 200px;

to describe the idea that you want the height of an element to be the
larger of its intrinsic size or 200px.


I wonder if it would also be useful to have a 'container' value, since
for some types of boxes (normal blocks), 'auto' means to fit to the
container, whereas for others (absolutely positioned elements and floats
and probably inline-blocks), it means something complicated related to
the 'container' value, the 'intrinsic' value, and the 'min-intrinsic'
value.

-David

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-css3-box-20010726/#the-width

-- 
L. David Baron        <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ >
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 12:22:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:16 GMT