W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [css3-values][css3-transforms] relative length in functional notation

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:59:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDzwNt4ZMOS_Z1dZUfA5CYnsjZMZ=c+hpHs6APHQ1SNyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>   There's is no normative stating when and what 'calc()' is treated as
> 'auto' when used in 'height'. Either this spec or css3-box should
> specify this. Is your intention to defer this to css3-box?

Yes, another spec (likely Box) will define the currently-undefined
behavior of percentages in certain properties.  This includes when
they appear in calc().

> css3-values has
>   # Given the complexities of width and height calculations on table
>   # cells and table elements, math expressions involving percentages
>   # for widths and heights on table columns, table column groups, table
>   # rows, table row groups, and table cells in both auto and fixed
>   # layout tables MAY be treated as if ‘auto’ had been specified.
> too so it seems the right fit here.

That paragraph is different - it's allowing table layout to
*completely* ignore calc() with percentages, even in situations where
plain percentages would be allowed and reasonable, because of the
weird way that table layout propagates some child constraints back
upwards (such as "width:25%" td forcing the table to be at least 4x
the cell's min-width).

It's unrelated to the general behavior surrounding percentages and
indefinite lengths that you're referring to.

Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 21:00:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:18 UTC