- From: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:15:18 +0200
- To: "'L. David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, <www-style@w3.org>
Bruno Fassino wrote:
> L. David Baron wrote:
>
> > The intent was that the conditions exclude cases where min-height or
> > max-height affects the used height.
>
>
> Yes, I agree on this. And I believe that cases when the
> min-height is "equal" to the used height are cases when
> min-height is not affecting the used height. So I believe
> that this case ("equal") should be added to the mentioned
> case, which means:
> "min-height less than the element's used height"
> becomes:
> "min-height less than or equal the element's used height"
I see now that the issue is caused by my incorrect reading of "used height",
since this is the height "after" min-height is applied, and so my suggested
change is indeed wrong.
But the current phrasing of the condition doesn't allow to distinguish the
case when the height "before" min-height is applied (the computed height?)
is equal to min-height. Is this the case that I wanted to add, since in this
case the min-height is not in effect, and it is currently excluded.
Best regards,
Bruno
--
Bruno Fassino http://www.brunildo.org/test
Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 06:15:52 UTC