- 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