Re: overflow:none or min-width:auto/intrinsic?

What a coinsidence, I was just about to write that why such a feature is
so much needed tho from slightly different point of view. I heartily
support your view and I will add that having a forced minimum intrinsic
size based on child elements would also be very useful in defining the
parent elements size inside an overflowed element. To illustrate what I
mean I did a small test case, please visit:

http://www.hesido.com/test/webdesign/overflowcontent.htm

Emrah Baskaya
www.hesido.com

>
> As far as I understand there is no way in CSS [1,2,3]
> to define rule:
> "set width of the block to 300px but not less than
> min-intrinsic width of its content"
> using existing set of attributes or/and values, am I right?
>
> In fact such algorithm is implemented in all UAs - it looks like
> table cells declared as either:
>
> td { overflow:none; }
>
> -or-
>
> td { min-width: min-intrinsic; }
>
> in all accessible to me UAs.
>
> (I know that there are no such value as 'none' in overflow currently)
>
> Trident engine (IE6/7 for Win32) seems like have
> overflow:none; as a default value for all block elements. It does overflow
> only if there is explicit declaration overflow:visible/etc.
>
> OT: (This is why w3c.org front page looks better in IE than in any other
> engine on small screen sizes,
> visual effects of overflow:visible as a rule give an impression of bad
> design. Try to reduce size of browser window
> to see what I mean)
>
> Question is: do we have any plans to introduce overflow:none
> or min-width: min-intrinsic or the like?
>
> This in my opinion is so fundamental that it should appear even in 2.1.
> At least display:table-cell is not quite working without it.
>
> Andrew Fedoniouk.
> http://terrainformatica.com

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 20:36:51 UTC