- From: Anne van Kesteren (fora) <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:42:47 +0200
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> Here http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#the-width I can
> see only: [Idea by David Baron: add keyword values 'intrinsic' and
> 'min-intrinsic' to force an element to have its intrinsic or minimum
> width.]
>
> And as far as I understand latin word 'intrinsic' in given context is
> about properties of 'solid' objects e.g. intrincis image width.
I'm getting bored by your e-mails. Could you please read the
specifications instead of making assumptions?
>>> and set its initial value to none.
>>
>> That won't happen, because the current default is interoperably
>> implemented.
>
> Also negative.
>
> Traditionaly and practicly all UA's try to render HTML as
> overflow:none set by default.
And how can you be so sure that you know it better than a member of the
CSS WG?
> Load <HTML> <P>IAmPrettyLongUnbreakableWord</P> </HTML> in any
> browser and see by yourself the default behaviour.
If I add a style rule to that:
p{
width:1em;
background:lime;
}
I can assure you that *most* browsers will not paint the complete
background of the *word* in green, only the first (two/three) letter(s).
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 01:46:32 UTC