Re: auto units versus 'auto' value, was Re: vertical-align

Hi, Justin,

Let's take a look here:

      Value:    <absolute-size> | <relative-size> | <length> | <percentage>
| inherit

And here:

'margin-right', 'margin-left'
      Value:    <margin-width> | inherit

<margin-width> is <length> | <percentage> | auto

As you can see <length> does not include <percentage> and does not include
auto value.

I don't know what is forcing you to think that %% should be part of
<length> units by specification are em, px, etc.

Again my proposal is simple: to transform 'auto' into <auto>.
As 'auto' is not applicable to font-size as %% (<auto>)  will not be
applicable to font-size.

For me it is pretty natural and logical ...  Am I alone?

Again <auto> units will solve many misteries and ugly exceptions (e.g.
vertical-align) which we have now in specification. And will give CSS real

BTW: Have you seen ugly 'struts' like <img src=spacer.gif width=100>?
<auto> will make them obsolete.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

> Sorry but I just read those two linked docs, and I don't see how that is
> a counter to anne's comment
> The fact that %% is a unit and not a keyword, explicitly affects it to
> <Length>, when in fact we can't use %% with font-size since it doesnt
> make sense, is not a solution, forcing a change from auto to an <auto>
> is not feasable in that sense either since, the UNIT '%%' will continue
> to be part of <LENGTH>
> Without trying to sound offensive, it does sound like you skimmed the
> majority of the spec and are reading parts here and there and trying to
> tell us (those who have) repeatedly that %% can work, when we keep
> telling you it can't, as far as I am concerned, I am no longer
> participating in this conversation on that regard.
> ~Justin Wood

Received on Friday, 21 May 2004 14:41:50 UTC