- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Glen Harman <gharman@erols.com>
- cc: <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Glen Harman wrote: > Well, if width specifies content width I presume that refers to content > edge. So if it is calculated directly against parent width values, I take > that to mean it is relative to the parent's content edge and thus the > parent's content edge equates with the containing block established > by said parent. But the definition of padding edge, found in section > > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/box.html#box-dimensions > > says that it is padding-edge which defines the containing block. This was an error: http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/REC-CSS2-19980512-errata.html#x60 > 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), the value is interpreted like 'auto'. > > maybe it is that last sentence which is driving this? In my first test > ( http://www.gharman.com/tablesize1.html ) outer table, outer table td, > inner table, and inner table td all have height:100% properties. But > if percentage entries qualify as "not specified explicitly" and my > properties are being ignored and treated as auto, I guess that > might account for the "shrinking" I'm seeing. If you specify 'height: 100%' on everything up through BODY and HTML then it will be explicitly specified (at least under some interpretations of the spec). -David -- L. David Baron <URL: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~dbaron/ > Mozilla Contributor <URL: http://www.mozilla.org/ > Invited Expert, W3C CSS WG <URL: http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ >
Received on Monday, 2 July 2001 13:19:48 UTC