W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

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

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:28:33 +0000
To: "www-style@gtalbot.org" <www-style@gtalbot.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, Gérard Talbot (css21testsuite@gtalbot.org) <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Message-ID: <07349ECFC3608F48BC3B10459913E70B12CFDCA7@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:00 PM on Gérard Talbot
> 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-
> re
> >> placed-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-
> re
> >> placed-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.

Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG has addressed your concerns in the upcoming publication of the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. 

The CSSWG resolved to  add a note sections 10.3 and 10.6.

10.3 note:
| Note. The used value of 'width' calculated below is a tentative value, and
| may have to be calculated multiple times, depending on 'min-width' and
| 'max-width', see the section Minimum and maximum widths below.

10.6 note:
| Note. The used value of 'height' calculated below is a tentative value, and
| may have to be calculated multiple times, depending on 'min-height' and
| 'max-height', see the section Minimum and maximum heights below.

We hope this closes your issue.

Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current resolution.

[1] http://w3.org/TR/CSS
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:29:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT