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

Re: Dreams aloud

From: Justin Wood <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:58:05 -0400
Message-ID: <40E0784D.4070509@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:

>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
>
>
>
>  
>
As I do agree that this would be a good way to prevent mistakes on the 
user-side, I do not feel it would be worth it to re-write/re-scope these 
attributes, plus if width: ... (.....)   was not recognized format for a 
UA, it would discard the width specification, would we want to 
completely discard all directives with min/max width and leave a 
completely broken UI for older UA's or keep our current approach.

Also that format would become unessecarily (sp?) complex, we would then 
have what would be coined `sub-properties` (by me).  these 
sub-properties would then be placed into the description block for each 
property that used them, and would add that much more complexity to a 
single properties parsing/description.

What if you want to modify the position in the display: block... one you 
have, later in the CSS or through DOM, how would you do this for example?

Just my thoughts,
~Justin Wood
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 15:59:03 GMT

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