- From: Greg Houston <gregory.houston@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 01:37:32 -0500
- To: W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>
Last night I was modifying Joe Lambert's Flux Slider to be responsive. I ran into three issues I think could be related to in order to make this sort of work faster and have better results. http://greghoustondesign.com/sandbox/flux-slider/demo_transition_gallery.html 1. There doesn't seem to be a simple, elegant way to make a div keep its aspect ratio when resized. Being able to set the width of an element as a percentage of its height or set its height as a percentage of its width would be great, and particularly so if all it required was a simple short-hand: .slider { width: 100%; height: 66.66666666%w; } or .slider { height: 100%; width: 150%h; } I ended up using the technique found at the following link. It requires using a couple wrapper divs, and though it works great it definitely has a hackish feel to it: http://files.brightcove.com/BCL_responsive-player-sample.html 2. If you slice up a div into smaller divs and add the same background to each slice as the parent and reposition that background appropriately, each background will still be the correct size to rebuild the original image from the slices. That is, unless you have resized the original container div and set the background-size to something like "auto 100%". That new background-size in pixels will not propagate down to the children, and so each child element now requires additional math to set the size of the background in relation to the size of the slice. It would be helpful if there was a CSS toggle that would make the exact size of the parent background propagate to the children. background-size: auto 100% propagate; <-- not propagating "auto 100%", but the actual pixel values this results in. So if you have a parent div whose size is 300px x 240px with background-size: auto 100% propagate; and place a div inside it whose width is 50% and height is 50% and give it a background, its background would have the same width and height as its parent. 3. I don't have a clear sense of what would be a good solution for this next issue, but its the most problematic that I ran into, and I've yet to come up with a workaround. It relates to halving the width or height of an element that doesn't have an even height or width. If you put two "halves" together where the whole dimension is an odd number there will generally be a 1px slice that is missing. The different UAs seem to relate to rounding differently and in my particular use case I found Chrome to create more anomalies than Firefox. It would first be nice to see the rounding method standardized so at least these anomalies were consistent across browsers. See John Resig's blog post below. Then perhaps as we have box-sizing now to offer different approaches to how to relate to the layout of a box, it might be helpful to have some options as to how to relate to that missing 1px. In my case being able to set a visible 1px bleed on a particular side of an element might be a sufficient workaround. Maybe that could just be a background option. The bleed, like a shadow, wouldn't be part of the width regardless of box-model. I don't know that this would be the best solution, but am just trying to throw something out there. background-bleed: 0 1px 0 0; <-- 1px of right side bleed http://ejohn.org/blog/sub-pixel-problems-in-css/ Some of my initial tests: http://greghoustondesign.com/sandbox/page-turn/
Received on Monday, 3 September 2012 07:02:42 UTC