- From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:32:42 -0500
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
fantasai wrote:
>
> No, "display: table" is much better than that. But even better
> would be adding David Baron's suggested value, 'intrinsic', to
> 'width' for CSS3.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#the-width
I strongly support the idea of an "intrinsic" keyword.
I think the spec needs to make clear exactly what the intrinsic width
means for a block-level element, though - in particular, it might be
considered to mean that no content in the block would ever get
word-wrapped, and that's not the desired behavior. I suggest defining it
in a way that works out identical to the width of a single-cell table.
How safe would it be to start writing code now that does something like
this:
.foo { width: 50%; width: intrinsic }
to get the desired behavior if user-agents start supporting "intrinsic"
in the future? Can I rely on "intrinsic" meaning what I want it to mean
if it's supported at all?
Stuart.
--
Stuart Ballard, Programmer
NetReach - Internet Solutions
(215) 283-2300, ext. 126
http://www.netreach.com/
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 09:32:49 UTC