W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2006

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

From: Emrah BASKAYA <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:55:58 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <1526.81.214.177.248.1143716158.squirrel@eposta.hesido.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:44 GMT