RE: [CSS2.1] Visual formatting model details

> >    A.  w > wmax > wmin > 0
> >    B.  h > hmax > 0
> >    C.  hmax/h > wmax/w
> >    D.  w*hmax/h < wmin
> 
> There are no numbers that satisfy these inequalities.
> 
> C can be rewritten as wmax < w * hmax / h
> D can be rewritten as wmin > w * hmax / h
> 
> But this implies that wmax < wmin, which contradicts A

Here's a recasting of A-D which makes it a little clearer, I hope:

A.  0 < wmin < wmax < wtoobig
B.  0 < hmax < htoobig
C.  htoobig/hmax < wtoobig/wmax
D.  wtoobig/wmin < htoobig/hmax

Or, in English -
A) there's a range of widths - wmin to wmax - and wtoobig is bigger than
wmax
B) htoobig is bigger than hmax
C) the height excess is overshadowed by the width excess (as a percentage)
D) But the excess over the minimum width is overshadowed by the height
excess (as a percentage)

A) and B) are obvious
C) means that the thing you're trying to fit in the hole is wider than it is
tall, for example
+----------+
|          |
+----------+
(assuming the hole is square, which I can - and without loss of generality)

D) means the thing you're trying to fit in the hole is taller than it is
wide, for example
+--+
|  |
|  |
|  |
|  |
+--+
(assuming the hole is square, which I can - and without loss of generality)

C) and D) can never be true for the same object.

Matthew van Eerde
Software Engineer
Hispanic Business Inc.
HireDiversity.com
805.964.4554 x902
Matthew.van.Eerde@hbinc.com
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com
http://www.hirediversity.com

Received on Friday, 6 February 2004 17:26:10 UTC