- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:07:04 +0100
- To: Andrew Clover <and@doxdesk.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Andrew Clover wrote: > > Okay. If you take that interpretation, they are equivalent (nearly *) > - and useless. If this is correct, there is no way an element's height > or vertical positioning can be based on the height of the viewport > without using fixed positioning. Unless we add more prose to the spec that says that percentages on the root element are relative to the viewport dimensions. > * - but not in all cases. If you put a 100px height on <html> and > add an absolute-positioned child with %age top, is that > percentage relative to the 100px (as implied by 'root element > is ICB') or still undefined (as implied by 'root element is inside > ICB')? There is nothing special about <html>. Rephrease the question using <div> instead of <html> and you'll see everything is just as well defined. -- Ian Hickson ``The inability of a user agent to implement part of this specification due to the limitations of a particular device (e.g., non interactive user agents will probably not implement dynamic pseudo-classes because they make no sense without interactivity) does not imply non-conformance.'' -- Selectors, Sec13
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 13:07:09 UTC