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 13:22:05 -0700
Message-ID: <004d01c45d4d$94a3e350$eb01000a@AFedoniouk>
To: "Justin Wood" <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>

> I dissagree "em, ex, ...." as well as % could make sense, any "flexible"
> sized value.

Justin, you are right about em, ex and flexible values.

I am focused on little bit different: 'width' should have one value.
Not three as right now.

Therefore author of any given CSS in the cascading order will be forced to
override these three components of the width at the same time without
possible inconsistency due to cascading.

"Atomicity" of values is always a good wish in design. Right?

Andrew Fedoniouk.


> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> I dissagree "em, ex, ...." as well as % could make sense, any "flexible"
> sized value.
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 16:22:43 GMT

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