- From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:55:58 +0300 (EEST)
- To: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen wrote: > +1 for "min-width: min-intrinsic". I think that overflow shouldn't > have such control over size of the blocks. Agreed, overflow is irrelevant. > > Should there be restrictions with intrinsic values? Does all of > these make any sense (when applied alone to a single element): > > min-width: min-intrinsic; > min-width: intrinsic; > min-width: max-intrinsic; > > width: min-intrinsic; > width: intrinsic; > width: max-intrinsic; > > max-width: min-intrinsic; > max-width: intrinsic; > max-width: max-intrinsic; > > -- > Mikko I think min- and max- values may cause confusion. Does min refer to the minimum size child element or the minimum size based on intrinsic elements? It is the latter of course but I believe just "intrinsic" would be sufficient as a value name. The value could well be used by all those properties, but I believe min-width would be sufficient for liquid layouts like W3 page and width would be sufficient for cases where the element is inside an overflowed element (like in the example page I sent earlier) Emrah Baskaya www.hesido.com
Received on Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:56:09 UTC