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

Re: auto units versus 'auto' value

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:20:01 +1000
Message-ID: <40AF1B41.1020503@iinet.net.au>
To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> The main idea of %% is exactly to solve "amorphity" of 'auto' in places
> where it used as a width of free space.

   As a concept, it seems reasonable to want a method that can calculate 
a length based on the /free space/ available (either vertically or 
horizontally) however, the proposal you have given for %% units, has 
some serious problems.

   Firstly, you wrote in a previous post [1] that it would make no sense 
to apply the units to the positioning proerties, 'top', 'right', 
'bottom' and 'left', but if a unit is defined correctly, then I see no 
reason why it shouldn't apply to those.

   Secondly, you make the assumption [2] that whenever the units are 
used, then the sum should be normalised to be no more than 100% of the 
free space, whereas the author may actually want the sum to be exactly 
what was given.  (correct me if I've misunderstood this)
the elements to make three columns are:

with the style:
container { display: block; }
col:first-child { width: 100px; }
col { width: 60%%; float: left; }

   The last two cols should add up to 120% of the free space, however, 
if I've understood correctly (and haven't become totally confused), your 
current proposal would mean that each element would only get 50% of the 
free space.  If the calculations do add up to be more than 100% of the 
free space, then it should just overflow using the normal overflow rules.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004May/0146.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004May/0403.html
Lachlan Hunt

Received on Saturday, 22 May 2004 05:20:09 GMT

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