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

Re: Block element width behavior

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:49:26 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030317144926.GA1479@pool-151-201-155-93.phil.east.verizon.net>

On Monday 2003-03-17 09:32 -0500, Stuart Ballard wrote:
> 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'm hoping that CSS3 can define this as well.

> I suggest defining it 
> in a way that works out identical to the width of a single-cell table.

I think that's the wrong way to do it.  The width of a single-cell table
(ignoring borders and such) should be defined in terms of the widths,

  min(max(intrinsic minimum width, containing block width), intrinsic width)

Perhaps it would be good to have yet another keyword for this behavior,
since I don't think it's possible to express it in terms of 'min-width',
'max-width', 'width', 'auto', 'intrinsic', and 'min-intrinsic'.  Perhaps
'shrink-wrap'?  Although maybe, as you propose, all we really need is

> How safe would it be to start writing code now that does something like 
> this:
> .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?

Not very safe.  I don't like the name 'intrinsic' and I'm hoping someone
can think of a better keyword.  We need consistent terms, too.


L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 09:49:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:20 GMT