W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [CSS21] Question about width calculation for replaced elements with intrinsic percentage width

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:57:34 -0800
Message-ID: <479D287E.9040303@inkedblade.net>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: www-style Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> This is in reference to 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-CSS21-20070719/visudet.html#inline-replaced-width 
> I'm having a bit of an issue with the last paragraph of this section:
>   Percentage intrinsic widths are first evaluated with
>   respect to the containing block's width, if that width
>   doesn't itself depend on the replaced element's width.
>   If it does, then a percentage intrinsic width on that
>   element can't be resolved and the element is assumed to
>   have no intrinsic width.
> Leaving aside the confusion over what "first" means there, since there 
> is no "later" to go with it, the problem I have is that "if that width 
> doesn't itself depend on the replaced element's width" can be rather 
> difficult to determine, since said dependency can be very indirect.  For 
> example, the containing block is an auto-width block or a 
> percentage-width block, and somewhere up its ancestor chain something is 
> shrink-wrapping.  Or tables might be involved anywhere in the ancestor 
> chain.
> It would make more sense to me if a percentage intrinsic width were 
> treated more like a percentage specified width: always treated as a 
> percentage of the containing block width, whatever that may be.  For 
> shrink-wrapping purposes, the preferred width and preferred minimum 
> width could be either 300px, or whatever they are for an empty block 
> with a percentage width, or something else.
> Thoughts?

Makes sense to me. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the original intention
and simply wasn't fully thought through when writing out the text.

Added as CSS2.1 Issue 33

You wouldn't happen to have a testcase handy?

Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 00:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC