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.
|

I've already published this in the list not once:
------------------------------------------------
%% units are "percentage from free space".

%% units are applicable to border, padding, margin, width and height CSS 
attributes only. UA will effectively compute them for all blocks in 'normal' 
flow. Thus width:100%% of floated block will not be interpreted at all (will 
be treated as undefined).


Formal definition of %% length units:
When allotting space among element attributes competing for space along 
axis, UA allot all values for attributes having other than %% lengths first, 
then divide up remaining available space among %% lengths. Each %% length 
receives a portion of the available free space that computed as a percentage 
from total sum of all %% units along axis. If total sum of all %% lengths 
along axis is less then 100 then 100%% value is used as a total sum of all 
%% units. Thus, if 100 pixels of space are available after the user agent 
allots pixel and percentage space, and the competing relative lengths are 
10%%, 20%%, and 70%%, the 10%% will be alloted to 10 pixels, the 20%% will 
be alloted 20 pixels, and the 70%% will be alloted 70 pixels. If 100 pixels 
of space are available, and the competing relative lengths are 10%%, 20%%, 
and 30%%, the 10%% will be alloted to 10 pixels, the 20%% will be alloted 20 
pixels, the 30%% will be alloted 30 pixels, and remaining 40 pixels will be 
left undistributed.

----------------------------------------------------------------

>From formal point of view "formal" definition at least is not worse than 
definition
of multi-length units in current HTML spec[1].

Please consider this as a formal proposal.

If needed I can provide more definition-by-examples.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/types.html#type-multi-length

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004May/0084.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2004May/0037.html



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

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 16:34:01 UTC