- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:33:57 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
# <number-multiplicative-expression> := # <number-term> | # <length-multiplicative-expression> '/' <length-term> | # <length-multiplicative-expression> 'mod' <length-term> <length-term> can't have units? -----Original Message----- From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:59 AM To: Brian Manthos Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: Re: [CSS3 Values] referencing width or height explicitly On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/#calc > > Is there a way to reference both width and height of the associated element > explicitly via calc()? > > If not, can we add it to the proposal list for CSS4 Values? > > Having such support would allow more flexible specification of properties > (such as gradients) that are sensitive to aspect ratio. In retrospect, > aspect ratio would be enough to solve some of the scenarios, but having > width and height (and doing division within the calc when you want aspect > ratio) is much more powerful. In general, allowing this exposes circularity problems. You really want to expose this explicitly as an aspect ratio, via something like the aspect-ratio property I have written up on my blog: <http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b4810>. Even if there were "element width" and "element height" units, you couldn't use them in calc() to do things aspect-ratio related, because you can't divide by a dimension. > [Sidenote: “W3C Working Draft 19 September 2006”.. eep!] Yeah, why do you think Fantasai and I are trying to get it updated? ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 19:34:36 UTC