- 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