- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:44:21 +1000
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> if 'width' is defined in the style definition it overrides previous value
> *and discards min and max values set in previous styles in the cascading
> order*
>
> So authors if they want to use width with constraints will be forced to
> override these three all together.
NO NO NO!!! That would break the cascading rules, setting a value on
one property *cannot* affect the value of another. If your rule was
applied, it would mean that if I specified rules like the following,
then min/max-width will not even be applied, however current css rules
state that they should.
div { min-width: 25%; max-width: 50%; }
div.a { width: 10em; } /* min/max-width will not apply with your rule */
div.b { width: 15em; }
> Actually the idea is deeper on second look:
>
> width: 100px;
> width: 50% (min:20px, max:100px);
This idea is reasonable, but the syntax is not. I believe something
equivelant has been discussed previously. min() and max() functions,
which could be introduced when a calc() function is introduced would
provide much more flexibility.
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://www.lachy.id.au/
lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 09:45:10 UTC