W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [CSS 2.1] [Section 10.3.3] Questions on width of block-level, non-replaced elements in normal flow

From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <6af2d9d411fda3d9d38ff8ef69197d2a.squirrel@cp3.shieldhost.com>
To: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Cc: "Anton Prowse" <prowse@moonhenge.net>

Le Mar 24 août 2010 15:19, Anton Prowse a écrit :
> 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?



Chrome 5.0.375.127, Safari 5.0.1 and Konqueror 4.4.5 fail that test.

IE8, Firefox 3.6.8, Opera 10.61 pass that test.

I have not checked latest Amaya and Hv3 TKHTML browsers.


>> 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.

Anton, I support your proposal on such relevant, judicious introduction
note; it makes a lot of sense.

Thank you for your time and your assistance on my email questions. I
really appreciate this.

best regards, Gérard
-- 
CSS 2.1 Test suite beta 3 (August 15th 2010)
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100815/html4/toc.html

Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/

Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 23:00:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT