- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:57:34 -0800
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > This is in reference to > http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-CSS21-20070719/visudet.html#inline-replaced-width > > I'm having a bit of an issue with the last paragraph of this section: > > Percentage intrinsic widths are first evaluated with > respect to the containing block's width, if that width > doesn't itself depend on the replaced element's width. > If it does, then a percentage intrinsic width on that > element can't be resolved and the element is assumed to > have no intrinsic width. > > Leaving aside the confusion over what "first" means there, since there > is no "later" to go with it, the problem I have is that "if that width > doesn't itself depend on the replaced element's width" can be rather > difficult to determine, since said dependency can be very indirect. For > example, the containing block is an auto-width block or a > percentage-width block, and somewhere up its ancestor chain something is > shrink-wrapping. Or tables might be involved anywhere in the ancestor > chain. > > It would make more sense to me if a percentage intrinsic width were > treated more like a percentage specified width: always treated as a > percentage of the containing block width, whatever that may be. For > shrink-wrapping purposes, the preferred width and preferred minimum > width could be either 300px, or whatever they are for an empty block > with a percentage width, or something else. > > Thoughts? Makes sense to me. I'd be surprised if this wasn't the original intention and simply wasn't fully thought through when writing out the text. Added as CSS2.1 Issue 33 http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1#issue-33 You wouldn't happen to have a testcase handy? ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 00:57:54 UTC