- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:42:21 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > For CSS2.1 the change that makes most sense to me is to eliminate the bit > about > values being ignored and make sure the width prose aligns with the height > prose > i.e. it consistently states that the specified steps define the used value. Sounds good. > Then CSSOM's job is to define the interop behavior of gCS(); here this > means > defining the set of properties for which it'll only resolve relative > lengths > and percentages and leave specified absolute lengths alone. > > Does that make sense? To be specific, I think we'd define that, if the *computed* value was "auto" and the computed value of the opposite property was non-"auto", return the negation of the opposite property's used value. Otherwise, return the used value. Right? Are we sure the bugwards compat is worth keeping? ~TJ
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 23:43:07 UTC