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

Re: Dreams aloud

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:44:21 +1000
Message-ID: <40E17235.5060700@iinet.net.au>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> if 'width' is defined in the style definition it overrides previous value
> *and discards min and max values set in previous styles in the cascading
> order*
> 
> So authors if they want to use width with constraints will be forced to
> override these three all together.

   NO NO NO!!!  That would break the cascading rules, setting a value on 
one property *cannot* affect the value of another.  If your rule was 
applied, it would mean that if I specified rules like the following, 
then min/max-width will not even be applied, however current css rules 
state that they should.

div { min-width: 25%; max-width: 50%; }
div.a { width: 10em; } /* min/max-width will not apply with your rule */
div.b { width: 15em; }

> Actually the idea is deeper on second look:
> 
> width: 100px;
> width: 50% (min:20px, max:100px);

   This idea is reasonable, but the syntax is not.  I believe something 
equivelant has been discussed previously.  min() and max() functions, 
which could be introduced when a calc() function is introduced would 
provide much more flexibility.


-- 
Lachlan Hunt

http://www.lachy.id.au/
lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 09:45:10 GMT

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