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

Re: Dreams aloud

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:55:59 -0700
Message-ID: <002a01c45d49$ef37e4f0$eb01000a@AFedoniouk>
To: <www-style@w3.org>

Actually the idea is deeper on second look:

width: 100px;
width: 50% (min:20px, max:100px);

Percentage is a function in fact and only percentage can be and make real
sense to be accompanied with
min/max constraints.

So  percentage value (as %% value also) is a function having one "main"
value and two optional constraints: min and max.

It is really has no sense to have e.g. { width:100px; min-width:40px;
max-width:120px } given at the same time.

The same apply to display attribute.
In
display: block
block here is a function - it could be accompanied with other specifications
like

display: block( overflow:... , position:..., etc ) - all parameters having
sense only in case of block.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainfomatica.com


>
> It would be nice if instead of three separate attributes width, min-width,
> max-width we represent
> 'width' as an aggregate or structure:
>
> width: 100px; /* old style */
> width: 50% (min:20px, max:100px)
>
> This will solve independent cascading issues mentioned in my previous
> posting.
>
> The same approach could be used for 'display':
>
> display: block(position:float-left)
> display: block(position:absolute, top:10px, ... )
> display: inline;
>
> Just to avoid mutualy exclusive attribute values.
>
> That are only dreams of course.
>
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
> http://terrainfomatica.com
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 15:56:34 GMT

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