W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Image % sizing interoperability

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:33:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAuyDk72hiJrGBjjGTaYwkMTT6_79kY4Q8uRTZ5=KdfyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Bogdan Brinza <bbrinza@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com> wrote:
> The spec says: "The percentage is calculated with respect to the height of
> the generated box's containing block. If the height of the containing block
> is not specified explicitly (i.e., it depends on content height), and this
> element is not absolutely positioned, the value computes to 'auto'. "
>
> In this case if we give an element 'height:100%' you could argue that we are
> 'specifying' the height 'explicitly' and it doesn't depend on the content
> height. So even though the element's computed value of the height is auto,
> we are not allowed to treat any elements with percentage height it contains
> as having an auto height.
>
> I don't agree with this way of reading it but I think the use of the words
> 'specified explicitly' (especially in the context of special-meaning terms
> like 'specified value') makes the spec more ambiguous than this thread is
> admitting.

This is why the newer specs attempt to use more precise wording, in
the form of "definite length". We're still not perfect, as the
disagreement over flexbox sizing shows, but we're iterating toward
correctness.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2014 21:34:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:22 UTC