- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:57:09 -0800
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
The idea is interesting, but by redefining what "auto" width or height
mean in the presense of an explicit ratio, don't you proclude the
ability to have a flexible width with a height that is proportional to
that width? Or does the new meaning of "auto" only apply to height?
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 24, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.d
e> wrote:
>
> Andrew Fedoniouk:
>> Time to time I am getting feature request to provide "keep aspect
>> ratio" functionality in CSS.
>>
>> To declare function 'width(NN%)' that can be used as a value of
>> height, min-height, max-height CSS attributes.
>>
>> #my-golden-ratio {
>> width: 30%;
>> height: width(62%);
>> }
>
> Why would you make either width or height depend on the other when
> you really want to provide their ratio (or area, i.e. either the
> result of their division or their multiplication)?
>
> foo {
> ratio: calc(4/3); /* ignored if contradicting explicit width/
> height,
> because it is not needed then */
> width: 4cm;
> height: auto; /* -> 3cm */
> }
>
> foo {
> area: 12cm; /* _square_ centimetres actually, but we only need
> the scale,
> the power is encoded in the property */
> width: 4cm;
> height: auto; /* -> 3cm */
> }
>
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 20:58:07 UTC