- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 23:59:26 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
David, let me repeat what I wrote in one of the previous messages What I am saying here: <P>from:<INPUT ... style="width:100%%" /></P> set width of INPUT equal to 100% of <container width minus space occupied by all 'solid' elements in current line> 'solid' elements here means all elements having horizontal dimensions in units other than %%. 'space occupied' means all width+padding+margin+border having values other than %%. Is this formal enough? to be short: "Percentage from free space along axis" Layout alghorithm has complexity O(n). It is slightly modified implementation of <P style=text-align:justify> Vertical implementation is similar. These units will not change any existing breaking rules and any others rules of CSS. This is already implemented in my experimental renderer. It works. I can demonstrate it alive. I can port this part into Mozilla, Opera, Safari, IE. If this will help. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com ---------------------------------------------------------- L. David Baron wrote: I am also against it. It is an attempt to mix into inline layout things that are conceptually unrelated to inline layout. If you want a bunch of things to share the horizontal space across a region, you should describe that rather than using a line-breaking model and then saying that one element takes x% of the rest of the available space in the line. Implementing this would significantly complicate line breaking. Currently implementations can assume that elements don't change size when moved from one line to another, except for pieces that appear (soft hyphens) or disappear (trailing spaces) *at break points*. This would violate that assumption and add significant complexity to something that's already complex enough. The realistic use cases I've seen mentioned for this %% proposal would be handled by a flexible box model (like XUL's box model).
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 03:00:55 UTC