Re: Proposal: content-vertical-alignment

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> |
> | What Andrew meant was "would allow".  He's referring to
> | his own, currently rejected, proposal for a new type of unit.
> 
> What David meant was "not accepted" rather
> than "currently rejected" :-P.

Actually until a formal, clear, well-defined spec for what "%%" means is 
sent to this list, it's not even a proposal.

So far it has -- at best -- been described anecdotally.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 10:57:10 UTC