Re: interpretation of float model - Mozilla vs Opera & IE

"current spec" = "current *working draft* of CSS2.1" right?

hence a draft we are soliciting public feedback on.

hence "Afternoon"'s comment that:

> I firmly agree with this. It goes back to the discussion last week.
> There is no other way to achieve this effect in CSS except through the
> table syntax. The effect is very useful.
> Ben

should be taken into account.



On 7/21/03 10:25 AM, "David Hyatt" <> wrote:

> Right.  I'm not saying I agree with the spec necessarily, but Mozilla
> and Safari are behaving correctly according to the language of the
> current spec.
> dave
> On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 10:03AM, Chavchanidze Giorgi wrote:
>>> Mozilla's rendering is correct.  Safari also puts the second float
>>> below the first.
>> Opera 7 does the same, but CSS2.1 says:
>> 10.3.5 Floating, non-replaced elements
>> If 'left', 'right', 'margin-left', or 'margin-right' are specified as
>> 'auto', their computed value is '0'.
>> If 'width' is specified as 'auto', the computed value is the
>> "shrink-to-fit"
>> width.
>> Calculation of the shrink-to-fit width is similar to computing the
>> width of
>> a table cell using the automatic table layout algorithm. Roughly:
>> calculate
>> the preferred width by formatting the content without breaking lines
>> other
>> than where explicit line breaks occur, and also calculate the preferred
>> minimum width, e.g., by trying all possible line breaks. CSS 2.1 does
>> not
>> define the exact algorithm. Thirdly, compute the available width: in
>> this
>> case, this is the width of the containing block minus 'left', 'right',
>> 'margin-left' and 'margin-right'. (Omit 'left' and 'right' if they do
>> not
>> apply to this element.)
>> Then the shrink-to-fit width is: min(max(preferred minimum width,
>> available
>> width), preferred width).

Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 13:39:04 UTC