- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:51:47 +0100
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "CSS WG" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:19:13 +0100, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Thursday 2010-02-11 15:20 +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> From work on getComputedStyle I figured out our current definition >> for computed value for both 'height' and 'width' does not match >> existing implementations (although I have not tested Internet >> Explorer). Here is a simple testcase: >> >> http://dump.testsuite.org/2010/width-computed-value.htm >> >> If the blue bar is less wide than the window the user agent agrees >> with me that the definition is wrong. Namely it states that the >> computed value is 'auto' if the property does not apply (e.g. when >> display is set to inline). Nobody follows this however. If we remove >> >> "; 'auto' if the property does not apply" >> >> from the computed value definitions we will match contemporary >> implementations. (And getComputedStyle can be defined somewhat more >> sanely.) > > Why are the "Computed Value" lines in the CSS 2.1 spec relevant > here? The getComputedStyle method corresponds largely to what CSS > 2.0 called computed values (though didn't define precisely), but > which CSS 2.1 calls used values. So I would expect the spec for > getComputedStyle to refer to CSS 2.1's definition of "used value" > (though perhaps for 'display:none' elements or those inside > 'display:none' elements, it should refer to computed values). > > (Likewise, for widths in percentages, the computed value is the > percentage, but the used value is a length.) It is relevant for the cases you mention. Inside display:none elements or elements the property does not apply to, e.g. when the element has display:inline. See the draft. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 12 February 2010 07:52:34 UTC