- From: Mike Sherov <mike.sherov@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:58:26 -0400
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Mike Sherov Lead Programmer SNAP Interactive, Inc. Ticker: STVI.OB Sent Via Mobile: Please excuse my grammar, tone, and punctuation. My thumbs can't create flowery prose. On Jul 13, 2012, at 11:47 AM, "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:30:15 +0200, Mike Sherov <mike.sherov@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 13, 2012, at 7:58 AM, "Øyvind Stenhaug" <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:46:56 +0200, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >>> >>>> In contrast, the following length valued properties that accept 'auto' have >>>> a distinct used value when display is not none: >>>> >>>> bottom >>>> height >>>> left >>>> right >>>> top >>>> width >>> >>> Not quite, I think. I don't see any part of CSS 2.1 that defines the used value of bottom/left/right/top for non-positioned elements. >>> >> >> What does Opera currently return in that case? "auto"? > > Well, nothing will give you the used value per current specs. But for getComputedStyle, yes, "auto". So does IE, Firefox and Chrome. > >> That's an >> interesting question, although I personally am not concerned about it, >> because asking for position values on non-positioned elements doesn't >> *seem* useful to me. > > Content can end up relying on a lot of strange things (possibly in an indirect fashion), if it happened to "work" when the author tested it. > > Anyway, the point is that while computed values are reasonably well defined, used values generally are not. So if the bottom/left etc properties are simply added to the CSSOM list alongside height etc, the definition would be incomplete. > >> If I ever saw a bug report in jquery from a user saying "I am getting >> a nonsensical response from .css('left') from position:static >> elements", I'd close it and say "insane inputs produce insane >> outputs". >> >> With all that said, if I needed to define it, I'd return 0 on >> position:static, or whatever the easiest thing to do here is. Again, >> for me, it's about pragmatism. Anyone asking for CSS position on >> non-positioned elements deserve nonsense in response :) > > But in the browser world, it's not necessarily the developer who will face the consequences. Maybe it's the user who happens to be using something that the developer didn't test. > > Interoperability is good, specs leaving things undefined is not. Sure, if it really is an unimportant case, picking whatever's easiest will work. But it should define *something*, just in case. That's my opinion :) I'm with you. +1. Let's define it! I was just saying that I selfishly dont care about that use case :) > > -- > Øyvind Stenhaug > Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 16:58:59 UTC