W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Stylings only possible with Tables

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 11:49:14 +0100
Message-ID: <467E4C2A.7040601@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: www-style@w3.org

Raul Dias wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-23 at 16:24 -0700, James Elmore wrote:
>> Raul Dias wrote:
>>> I agree with what you said.
>>> My point is that removing the phrase below from the 2.1 definition about
>>> % heights (10.5) already provides developers to acomplish this in a
>>> clean way.  Not the best way (no grouping), but a clean path to start
>>> (and the implementation is already ready for current renders).
>>> 	If the height of the containing block is not specified 
>>> 	explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this 
>>> 	element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to 
>>> 	'auto'.
>> Maybe I'm not understanding, but this would only allow the content height to 
>> control the height of the containing block. 
> Exactly.
>> If the contents of similar blocks 
>> are the same heights, the blocks would have the same heights. But, if the 
>> contents have different heights (the problem several developers have mentioned), 
>> then their heights would not match.
> Sure. Thats what the CSS does now.
>>  What seems to be requested is that 
>> developers / designers want some way to make heights / widths match, even when 
>> they are not within the same block and do not have identical content sizes.
> Yes, and the reason for this (considering the same container) is the paragraph a showed before.
> So, as I said earlier, removing that phrase solves this case.
> Consider this:
> <div id="parent">
>  <div id="column" style="float: left">

In passing, this is a misuse of float.  Floats are are typographicsl 
technique for including out of line content as boxes in the main content.

> If the phrase I showed before from CSS21 did not exist, adding
> height:100%; to both #content and #column would solve the problem.

There aren't too many problems for 100%, but if you have any lower 
percentages anywhere, you mess up incremental rendering.

> I have ressalted this, becasuse the implementation is probably already
> there, most complaint rendering engines when they see a "height: xx%;"
> will check to see if the parent height was explicit specified and
> fallback to "auto" is not.  All is required is to jump over this check.

If you jump over the check, you jump over the fallback, and have an 
undefined height.  You cannot implement this just be deleting code.

> - CSS hacks (negative giants paddings/margins) which usually break other
> stuff.

You are still proposing a CSS hack, namely the use of float for things 
which aren't typographical floats.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 10:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:29 UTC