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

Re: CSS: %% length unit. Proposal. Some clarifications.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 23:16:02 -0700
Message-ID: <000301c43656$4536e790$0301a8c0@ATHLON>
To: "Anne van Kesteren (fora)" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, <www-style@w3.org>

>
> Maybe you should reread the specification.
>

Let's do it together, OK?:

1)
"<percentage> Specifies a percentage width. The percentage is calculated
with respect to the width of the generated box's containing block. If the
containing block's width depends on this element's width, then the resulting
layout is undefined in CSS 2.1. "
[http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property]
2)
"A percentage value for a column width is relative to the table width. If
the table has 'width: auto', a percentage represents a constraint on the
column's width, which a UA should try to satisfy. (Obviously, this is not
always possible: if the column's width is '110%', the constraint cannot be
satisfied.)"
[http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/tables.html#auto-table-layout]

And that is it about percentage, width and columns.
Any *real* advice how to interpret this for implementation purposes?
What phrases here you classify as "solid"?

<russian-humor-dont-pay-attention>
Seems like "should" is quite popular verb in the community.
I can imagine description of calc(...) rules : "the result of 2% + 2em
(gosh!) should be equal 4px or may be 5pt. It depends on Saturn position at
the moment of writing".
</russian-humor-dont-pay-attention>

> > Seems like Mozilla is using %% units for that :))) Wohoo!!!
>
> Perhaps you understand now why your proposal isn't needed at all.
>

:)))))

Perfect! You say: "Don't even try to formilze this stuff. Somebody from
Mozilla, Microsoft, Opera, Apple, RedHat will do it for you. They have egg
heads for that".

If this is the way how to write specifications then let it be so.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 02:17:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:29 GMT