W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Block element width behavior

From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:32:42 -0500
Message-ID: <3E75DC8A.7080402@netreach.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

fantasai wrote:
> No, "display: table" is much better than that. But even better
> would be adding David Baron's suggested value, 'intrinsic', to
> 'width' for CSS3.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#the-width

I strongly support the idea of an "intrinsic" keyword.

I think the spec needs to make clear exactly what the intrinsic width 
means for a block-level element, though - in particular, it might be 
considered to mean that no content in the block would ever get 
word-wrapped, and that's not the desired behavior. I suggest defining it 
in a way that works out identical to the width of a single-cell table.

How safe would it be to start writing code now that does something like 

.foo { width: 50%; width: intrinsic }

to get the desired behavior if user-agents start supporting "intrinsic" 
in the future? Can I rely on "intrinsic" meaning what I want it to mean 
if it's supported at all?


Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 09:32:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:06 UTC