- From: Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:48:33 +0900
- To: www-style@gtalbot.org
- Cc: "Lea Verou" <leaverou@gmail.com>, "W3C www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 27, 2012, at 12:43 PM, Gérard Talbot wrote: > … > html > { > height: auto; > min-height: 100%; > } > is not resolvable; as I am trying to understand your point of view, > Philippe, this is what you're basically saying. Well browsers resolve that as being the height of the viewport. html { min-height: 100%; border-left: 50px solid green; } You'll see a border on the left from top to bottom of the viewport. > ... > Since 'height: auto' is not resolvable, then such comparison is also not > doable. Okay, Philippe: I see your point. My point is that, given html, body { min-height: 100%; } the min-height on body computes to '0', as the height of the parent block cannot be resolved. Indeed. > On the other hand, > html {height: 100%;} is. > > So, this leaves me with at least 4 tests with predictable layout. > > The following 4 tests are correct, should be correct: Test 1 and 2 are correct (and browsers handle that as expected: lime background). > 3- > 'height: 100%' set on html, 'min-height: 100%' set on body, 'height: 100%' > set on p (h, m, h): > > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/min-height-percentage-005.xhtml This should fail. This is similar to Lea's initial test case. The height of body is 'auto', 'height: 100%' on the child <p> is auto. CSS 2.1:10.5 again. > 4- > 'height: 100%' set on html, 'min-height: 100%' set on body, 'min-height: > 100%' set on p (h, m, m): > > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/min-height-percentage-004.xhtml This should fail for the same reason as the third test case. Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 04:49:00 UTC