- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:11:08 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Anton Prowse wrote: >> Nice puzzle! I don't think you're missing anything, and I suppose it >> depends on what the philosophy of computed values is. Do specified >> percentages normally remain as percentages for the purposes of the >> computed value? > > Yes. Right. > I think Anne's point is that section 9.4.3 should explicitly say that > the computed value of the non-auto side (or the non-ignored side in the > overconstrained case) is whatever normally happens for computed values > for the property. Right. I interpreted it as posing an additional question of what form the computed value should take (percentage or length). What I also wished to point out was that irrespective of whether that information were explicitly added, the wording of the existing text could still use a little work, as it doesn't say quite the same thing in the two cases of 'left'-'right' and 'top'-'bottom'. It is currently just about possible to infer the computed value of the non-auto side as being -25% in Anne's example without the proposed clarification... but only because each case says a slightly different thing and the supposition that the cases are analogous means that you can combine the statements to get the result. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:12:02 UTC