- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:19:07 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@gtalbot.org
On 24/08/2010 20:31, Gérard Talbot wrote: > Hello, > > I am not very familiar with section 10.3.3 and its equation and rules on > handling over-constrained values/situations. > > " > The following constraints must hold among the used values of the other > properties: > > 'margin-left' + 'border-left-width' + 'padding-left' + 'width' + > 'padding-right' + 'border-right-width' + 'margin-right' = width of > containing block > " > > coming from section 10.3.3: > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#blockwidth > > 1- > Is this testcase correct? > > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/block-non-replaced-width-008.html > > I mean here > a) there should be no red > b) the calculations given in the source code are correct > > That test has its own importance because, right now, there is diverging > implementations among browsers. Looks right to me. Who's getting this wrong? > 2- > The spec says: > " > If there is exactly one value specified as 'auto', its used value follows > from the equality. > " > > What if the one single specified value as 'auto' is width and complying > with the equation would imply that the used width is negative... How could > this be? > > E.g.: > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/block-non-replaced-width-0xx.html > > I must be missing something here... You're missing the same thing that I did: min-width and some tentative magic ;-) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0529.html As I said therein, I really would prefer a note in the introduction to 10.3 (and by analogy, 10.6), such as the following: | The used value for 'width' calculated according to the rules in this | section is tentative, being subject to the rules in 10.4. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 22:21:13 UTC