W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2005

Re: [CSS21] properties for table-column (In HTML: COL) & table-column-group (In HTML: COLGROUP) items.

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:07:45 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c801050701060740bc5b81@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 7/1/05, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > percentages. How would you do it without percentages and would this
> > match the mental model the web designers have in their head?
> The problem is that the mental model that designers have doesn't include
> the possibility that the reader doesn't like 7pt type!  I disable
> font sizes because of the excessive use of small fonts and it is
> quite common for text to overflow its layout boxes, in particular for
> controls to be pushed out of the box.
> Designers might like to think in fixed proportions, but when those
> proportions include two dimensions, as they usually do, you get
> a conflict with the overidability of font sizes.  For the web, most
> boxes need to be defined in em sizes, or have minimum sizes in ems.

Well I would have gotten rid of font size and family selection a long
time ago, but that's me.

While you're talking about size, I'm talking about space. At least I
perceive that. But on the off chance that you're talking about space
too, I'll respond.

In any kind of flow formatting you have a bound dimension and an
unbound dimension.

In RtL languages width is the bound direction. Height is therefore the unbound.

You can have two unbound directions, but not in flow layouts. Those
only work with grids and an origin.

So what I'm saying is that in the bound direction, you use
percentages. In the unbound direction, you use lines (or some other

We seem to have left this simplicity for some reason. I say we return to it.

Orion Adrian
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 13:07:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:19 UTC