- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:41:22 -0700
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Anne van Kesteren (fora)" <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Cc: "Max Romantschuk" <max@provico.fi>, <www-style@w3.org>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Good one, thanks Ian.
But design based on independent cascade of witdh attribute without
overloading min-width for me looks somehow unreliable.
I mean cascading rules for min/max should be different to be used reliably.
See, I have:
p { width:50%; min-width:100px }
and after that
p { width:50px }
See the problem?
I think that overriding 'width' should force nullifying of 'min-width'.
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
>From: "Ian Hickson":
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Anne van Kesteren (fora) wrote:
> >>
> >> { min-width:25%; width: auto }
> >> and
> >> { min-width:25%; width: 50% }
> >>
> >> are *complete* nonsense I propose to remove percentage
> >> from list of available units of min/max-widths.
> >
> > The first isn't nonsense. Why would it be nonsense?
>
> Nor is the second, given the cascade.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 12:43:34 UTC