- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 09:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Afternoon <afternoon@uk2.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Afternoon wrote: > > The value would be make it obvious to users what the intention was and > to increase the semantic association. The benefits would be less > confusion about centering and longer term reliability of the properties, > since the function and the name meaning will always be the same. The reduced confusion would probably be massively offset by the browser bugs, and the browsers that don't implement it. UAs have enough trouble with doing stuff like this once. I really don't like the idea of giving them more rope to hang themselves with, as it were. :-) >>> How could the block being aligned be instructed to shrink wrap it's >>> contents? Is this the intent of the proposed "intrinsic" and >>> "min-instrinsic" keywords for the width property. If so, excellent. >> >> Pretty much. > > How exactly would they be different? That depends on what "shrink wrap" means. -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL "meow" /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 12:05:18 UTC