W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2004

Re: min-width:25%

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:41:22 -0700
Message-ID: <000601c45d2e$bf551700$0201a8c0@ATHLON>
To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Anne van Kesteren (fora)" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: "Max Romantschuk" <max@provico.fi>, <www-style@w3.org>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>

Good one, thanks Ian.

But design based on independent cascade of witdh attribute without
overloading min-width for me looks somehow unreliable.

I mean cascading rules for min/max should be different to be used reliably.

See, I have:

p { width:50%; min-width:100px }

and after that

p { width:50px }

See the problem?

I think that overriding 'width' should force nullifying of 'min-width'.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com






>From: "Ian Hickson":
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote:
> >>
> >>   { min-width:25%; width: auto }
> >> and
> >>   { min-width:25%; width: 50% }
> >>
> >> are *complete* nonsense I propose to remove percentage
> >> from list of available units of min/max-widths.
> >
> > The first isn't nonsense. Why would it be nonsense?
>
> Nor is the second, given the cascade.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 12:43:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:30 GMT