- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:54:18 -0500
- To: "Philippe Wittenbergh" <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>
- Cc: "Lea Verou" <leaverou@gmail.com>, "W3C www-style mailing list" <www-style@w3.org>
Le Jeu 26 janvier 2012 23:48, Philippe Wittenbergh a écrit : > > 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. I have re-edited all the tests to include 'height: auto' when such declaration was implied but not explicit. Section 10.6.3 is applied: " If 'height' is 'auto', the height depends on whether the element has any block-level children and whether it has padding or borders (...) " 10.6.3 Block-level non-replaced elements in normal flow when 'overflow' computes to 'visible' http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-height-property > >> 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). We will include 'height: 100%' set on html, 'height: 100%' set on body, 'height: 100%' set on p http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/height-percentage-003a.xhtml in the test suite. > >> 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. I see the whole picture now. Yes, I think you're right. I may include one or a few tests (but entirely reworked) into the test suite so that such cases are covered and help solve issues with web authors or prevent some bugs to be filed in a bug tracking system. Thank you for your analysis, Philippe! Gérard (who is very busy) -- CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011 http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html Contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/ Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
Received on Friday, 27 January 2012 05:54:47 UTC