- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:22:05 -0700
- To: "Justin Wood" <jw6057@bacon.qcc.mass.edu>, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
> I dissagree "em, ex, ...." as well as % could make sense, any "flexible" > sized value. Justin, you are right about em, ex and flexible values. I am focused on little bit different: 'width' should have one value. Not three as right now. Therefore author of any given CSS in the cascading order will be forced to override these three components of the width at the same time without possible inconsistency due to cascading. "Atomicity" of values is always a good wish in design. Right? Andrew Fedoniouk. > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > > >Actually the idea is deeper on second look: > > > >width: 100px; > >width: 50% (min:20px, max:100px); > > > >Percentage is a function in fact and only percentage can be and make real > >sense to be accompanied with > >min/max constraints. > > > > > I dissagree "em, ex, ...." as well as % could make sense, any "flexible" > sized value. >
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 16:22:43 UTC